Religion

[*\Conan/*]

Originally posted by Garnet FalconDance: ::nods Attalus' way:: Yep, yep. Do I remember correctly that *\Conan/* (or someone else maybe) possted the same or very similar questions in another religion-themed thread?

Hi Garnet! It could have been myself..not sure. I have participated in these types of threads before and am always looking for input. (I do remember that I really enjoyed your views on this subject )
Thank you Attalus. I am always trying to keep in mind that no matter how bizzare some religions may appear to us at first sight, they can ultimately be understood as the dwelling of human minds on certain hypotheses concerning nature, existence, life, death, good ,and evil. Will human kind except a unity of views or solutions or in the unity of the operations of the human mind. I dont think so but I am very happy to take a shot at understanding where one gets his or her points of view.

I don't really call myself religious in any aspect. I believe in a relationship with God and try to keep it as simple as possible. He never said change and then come back, come to me and therefore you change.- always I feel He is the greatest refuge anyone can experience, in good times and in bad.

This is the kind of discussion that I come here for...
Having read through every post (it's a slow day here) I noticed a couple of things I'll toss out:
It seems that the battle between evolution and creationism is one of fear. Specifically, the fear of being wrong.
For the creationists, proof of anything that flatly contradicts the revealed truth in which they believe is equal to a dismissal of their faith. (faith here as in the entirety of their belief system, not their personal acceptance of a specific article)
For the evolutionists, the existence of a primal urge which created life and has revealed knowledge which is untestable and irreproducible would completely undermine the rationale of scientific rigor.
Nobody likes to be wrong, and the closer that the wrong is to your very raison d'etre, the more one wants to dispute and dismiss it. What seems to be lacking in both camps is the potential that they are both perhaps partially right. Attalus's testament to his viewpoint is the only mention of this possibility.
So I ask both sides, why? Why is it one or the other, and not perhaps some of each? Is there no room in either system for elements of the other to be possible?

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Absynthe: This is the kind of discussion that I come here for... Having read through every post (it's a slow day here) I noticed a couple of things I'll toss out: It seems that the battle between evolution and creationism is one of fear. Specifically, the fear of being wrong. For the creationists, proof of anything that flatly contradicts the revealed truth in which they believe is equal to a dismissal of their faith. (faith here as in the entirety of their belief system, not their personal acceptance of a specific article) For the evolutionists, the existence of a primal urge which created life and has revealed knowledge which is untestable and irreproducible would completely undermine the rationale of scientific rigor. Nobody likes to be wrong, and the closer that the wrong is to your very raison d'etre, the more one wants to dispute and dismiss it. What seems to be lacking in both camps is the potential that they are both perhaps partially right. Attalus's testament to his viewpoint is the only mention of this possibility. So I ask both sides, why? Why is it one or the other, and not perhaps some of each? Is there no room in either system for elements of the other to be possible?

I agree with your sentiment Absynthe, but not the details. Science is unafraid to completely re-invent itself if something new and unexpected is found. The greatest scientist in history are those that have bucked the established world view and turned everything upside down (Einstein, Copernicus).
While in the religious world those that buck the system fair a bit differently. If they are lucky and can gather enough followers they will start a new sect (Martin Luther, Joseph Smith) or a whole new religion (Muhammad, Jesus). If your not so lucky you get burned at the stake.

[Darkman]

I find it interesting that no one has responded to Madriver's two links yet

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...49809EC588EEDF

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

Oh and I'll throw out another link from the talkorigins site that seems to cover most of what is being disputed in this thread.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Absynthe: This is the kind of discussion that I come here for... Having read through every post (it's a slow day here) I noticed a couple of things I'll toss out: It seems that the battle between evolution and creationism is one of fear. Specifically, the fear of being wrong. For the creationists, proof of anything that flatly contradicts the revealed truth in which they believe is equal to a dismissal of their faith. (faith here as in the entirety of their belief system, not their personal acceptance of a specific article) For the evolutionists, the existence of a primal urge which created life and has revealed knowledge which is untestable and irreproducible would completely undermine the rationale of scientific rigor. Nobody likes to be wrong, and the closer that the wrong is to your very raison d'etre, the more one wants to dispute and dismiss it. What seems to be lacking in both camps is the potential that they are both perhaps partially right. Attalus's testament to his viewpoint is the only mention of this possibility. So I ask both sides, why? Why is it one or the other, and not perhaps some of each? Is there no room in either system for elements of the other to be possible?

But if course. There are Christian evolutionists. As Nachrafe mentioned there is the belief in partial evolution - which I have. That is evolution within a species, but not the mutations evolution theory needs to work.

I simply don't find enough scientific evidence to swallow an evolution theory that is always changing with new 'evidence'. If the evidence was there I'd believe it, yet still hold my theology to be true.

[ 12-04-2002, 05:26 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Darkman]

Cerek, what was the point you were trying to make about dinosaurs? Simply that they are mentioned in the bible (if you call that mentioning..)? That quote implies that dinos were around at the same time humans were! Now I realize that bible thumpers like to pick and choose which parts of the bible are literal and which are symbolic, but what is that quote supposed to tell us about the relationship between man and dinosaurs??

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Rokenn: I was using the roundness of the earth as something else many people have not experienced directly.

A huge number of humans have been on an airplane. Much, much greater than the proportion involved in CarbDating experiments.

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Yorick: I simply don't find enough scientific evidence to swallow an evolution theory that is always changing with new 'evidence'. If the evidence was there I'd believe it, yet still hold my theology to be true.

Here is some fresh evidence: Mice, men share 99 percent of genes

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Rokenn: I agree with your sentiment Absynthe, but not the details. Science is unafraid to completely re-invent itself if something new and unexpected is found. .

And relgious people aren't? Mate, if people didn't do that we'd all be Jews, Hindus and ancestor/nature worshippers.

How much do you know about what it is to have spiritual faith?

[Madriver]

Originally posted by Darkman: I find it interesting that no one has responded to Madriver's two links yet http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...49809EC588EEDF http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html Oh and I'll throw out another link from the talkorigins site that seems to cover most of what is being disputed in this thread. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

It's the whole fear thing again, the linked arguments make too much sense. [img]tongue.gif[/img]