Is your creation or evolution perspective infallibly correct?

[Chalnoth]

Do you believe that this also holds true for creationism and evolution views? Or do we have enough present data to be sure one way or the other?

Depends upon the view. From what I understand about the evidence, the most simple, literal interpretation of creation and the flood is completely falsified. Since we have witnessed heritability and random mutations, evolution as the process described by Darwin is an undeniable fact.

One cannot prove, however, that there was not a spiritual origin to various forms of life or specific species. But given that we know a perfectly good physical explanation that can give rise to life, as well as the observed diversity of life, I see absolutely no reason to bother with any sort of spiritual explanation: I see spiritual explanations as giving up, as it relates to science: once you say, "goddidit," all work ends.

 

[VinceBlaze]

Depends upon the view. From what I understand about the evidence, the most simple, literal interpretation of creation and the flood is completely falsified. Since we have witnessed heritability and random mutations, evolution as the process described by Darwin is an undeniable fact.

My difficulty with this is that I hear people on both sides confidently asserting that the other side is false, and that thier side is true.

For example, you seem assured that one side is false and the other side is true. But then another will come along and assert the exact opposite. Who then am I to believe?

 

[random_guy]

My difficulty with this is that I hear people on both sides confidently asserting that the other side is false, and that thier side is true.

For example, you seem assured that one side is false and the other side is true. But then another will come along and assert the exact opposite. Who then am I to believe?

As an evolutionist (really just someone that accepts science) my views will change depending on what evidence is found. While I don't assert Creationism is false, I do believe it's unscientific and unsupported by the current evidence. As of now, Evolution is the best current scientific theory for explaining the diversity of life, and until another comes along, it's the theory I accept.

I suggest you believe neither person, since science isn't based on belief, but evidence. Study the evidence yourself by going to the scientific sources. That's what I did, and I ended up accept evolution. Just make sure you go to credible scientific sources.

 

[RichardT]

My difficulty with this is that I hear people on both sides confidently asserting that the other side is false, and that thier side is true.

For example, you seem assured that one side is false and the other side is true. But then another will come along and assert the exact opposite. Who then am I to believe?

What I try to do then, is look it up myself,

What I want to do is, read this in whole: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Then read Ashby Camp's rebuttal : http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp

I'll see what I think after I finish...

Though I do have a great zeal for creationism, the bible(KJV), and christianity...

 

[Chalnoth]

For example, you seem assured that one side is false and the other side is true. But then another will come along and assert the exact opposite. Who then am I to believe?

Well, why should you bother to listen to what a person says? Why not investigate the evidence? I am confident in these things because I have been convinced by the evidence, not by people.

 

[VinceBlaze]

I suggest you believe neither person, since science isn't based on belief, but evidence.

I am personally dissuaded against certain aspects of both creationism and evolution.

Just make sure you go to credible scientific sources.

My fear is that current scientific sources may not always be adequate when attempting to explain something as vast as the origins of life.

 

[VinceBlaze]

What I try to do then, is look it up myself,

What I want to do is, read this in whole: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Then read Ashby Camp's rebuttal : http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp

I'll see what I think after I finish...

Though I do have a great zeal for creationism, the bible(KJV), and christianity...

Thanks for the links. I believe that all animal species (including humans) are interrelated. Variations of the same greater species.

 

[VinceBlaze]

Why not investigate the evidence?

Okay. But then I must ask 'What constitutes valid evidence?'

 

[AV1611VET]

I've been under the impression that this audit trail began with more than 66 books.

There are 14 additional books, known as the Apocrypha, that were considered too controversial to be included into the canon of the King James Bible, due mainly to their stance on the doctrine of salvation, and how it's achieved.

In short, these 14 books conflict with the other 66 doctrinally, and thus were disqualified.

They were kept though, mainly for their historical content.

 

[VinceBlaze]

There are 14 additional books, known as the Apocrypha, that were considered too controversial to be included into the canon of the King James Bible, due mainly to their stance on the doctrine of salvation, and how it's achieved.

In short, these 14 books conflict with the other 66, and thus were disqualified.

They were kept though, for their historical content, albeit their doctrine is wrong.

If these 14 books were cut, wouldn't this then mean that the audit trail contained fallible books in it's earlier stages?

 

[AV1611VET]

If these 14 books were cut, wouldn't this then mean that the audit trail contained fallible books in it's earlier stages?

No --- they weren't cut --- they were never included in the first place.

 

[VinceBlaze]

No --- they weren't cut --- they were never included in the first place.

Then why are they mentioned?

 

[tocis]

How rigid are you in your creation or evolution perspective? Is your stance infallible?

Definitely not. It can't be unless your knowledge about life et cetera is absolutely complete, which it probably will never be.

However, 99+ % conviction is still very close to 100 %

 

[Chalnoth]

Okay. But then I must ask 'What constitutes valid evidence?'

Repeatable observations, verified by multiple, independent groups of people.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

There are 14 additional books, known as the Apocrypha, that were considered too controversial to be included into the canon of the King James Bible, due mainly to their stance on the doctrine of salvation, and how it's achieved.

In short, these 14 books conflict with the other 66, and thus were disqualified.

They were kept though, for their historical content, albeit their doctrine is wrong.

just in case anyone is tempted to believe this, the facts are different.

The difference in the Roman Catholic canon and the Protestant is the difference between the Vulgate, which relies heavily on the Septuagint for the OT. And the Masoretic text which underlies the KJV.

There was no conference or group that looked at the deuterocanonical writings and discarded them for theological reasons. It was a natural decision from the first decision to go with the Masoretic text rather than the Vulgate or LXX for the OT original text.

see:
http://www.septuagint.net/

1- Deutero-canonical (second canon):
It is the term used in 1566 by the Roman Catholic Church, meaning that their canonicity was recognized only after a period of time. They are included in the Greek Septuagint scriptures of the third century before Christ, but they are not included in the Hebrew Masoretic scriptures of the 7th century after Christ. Some fragments of these books have also been discovered among the Dead See Scrolls.
They are included in the Catholic and Orthodox Bibles, and usually not included in the Protestant Bibles.
The Deutero-canonical include the following books and parts of books:
- Historical: Tobit, Judith, First and Second Maccabees, Additions to Esther
- Wisdom: Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (also called Ecclesiasticus).
- Prophets: Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah (in Baruch), and parts of Daniel: The Prayer of Azariah, the Song of the Three Young Men, Bel and the Dragon, and Susana.

http://www.religion-cults.com/Christianity/holy-s.htm

 

[random_guy]

I am personally dissuaded against certain aspects of both creationism and evolution.

My fear is that current scientific sources may not always be adequate when attempting to explain something as vast as the origins of life.

Well, that's the subject of abiogenesis, which is a different theory than evolution. Abiogenesis is a very new field (compared to evolution) and scientists are still working on the many different theories in the feel. That's why I'm hesistant to accept many of the theories being presented for abiogenesis. It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out in the future because I think it would be entirely possible for scientists to create life from organic molecules 10-15 years down the life.

 

[AV1611VET]

Here's an example from the Apocrypha:

Nevertheless while there was yet breath within him, being inflamed with anger, he rose up, and though his blood gushed out like spouts of water, and his wounds were grievous, yet he ran through the midst of the throng, and standing upon a steep rock, when as his blood was now quite gone, he plucked out his bowels, and taking them in both his hands, he cast them upon the throng, and calling upon the Lord of life and spirit to restore him those again, he thus died.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then why are they mentioned?

From www.jesus-is-lord.com/apocryph.htm


[SIZE=+2]Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible.[/SIZE]

1. Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.
2. None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.
3. The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthrow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
4. The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the real Christian church.
5. The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.
6. The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. The following verses are taken from the Apocrypha translation by Ronald Knox dated 1954:
   Basis for the doctrine of purgatory:
   2 Maccabees 12:43-45, 2.000 pieces of silver were sent to Jerusalem for a sin-offering...Whereupon he made reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.​
   Salvation by works:
   Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin. Tobit 12:8-9, 17, It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; for alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.​
   Magic:
   Tobit 6:5-8, If the Devil, or an evil spirit troubles anyone, they can be driven away by making a smoke of the heart, liver, and gall of a fish...and the Devil will smell it, and flee away, and never come again anymore.​
   Mary was born sinless (immaculate conception):
   Wisdom 8:19-20, And I was a witty child and had received a good soul. And whereas I was more good, I came to a body undefiled.​
7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.
8. No apocryphal book is referred to in the New Testament whereas the Old Testament is referred to hundreds of times.
9. Because of these and other reasons, the apocryphal books are only valuable as ancient documents illustrative of the manners, language, opinions and history of the East.

 

[Tomk80]

How rigid are you in your creation or evolution perspective? Is your stance infallible? Why or why not?

Please understand that I'm not asking for the basis of your creation/evolution stance. Rather, I'm asking if you think that your stance is infallibly correct. Why or why not? I have encountered protagonists on both sides who are each absolutely convinced that they are correct. Is your stance infallible?

It is not. I would argue that the theory of evolution is currently the best explanation for life on earth and that there is virtually no evidence against that, at this moment in time.

But I cannot argue that this is infallably true:
1. I'm not infallable, so I might misunderstand things.
2. I'm not omnipotent, so I don't know all the evidence.
3. Humans are not infallabe, so we might collectively make mistakes.
4. Humans are not omnipotent, so we might come across evidence in the future that negates current ideas.
5. Last thursdayism might just be true, in case science will never uncover this because it was created by iggy, the trickster magic elf.

 

[nvxplorer]

(I'm certainly not talking about the Catholic religion which is not Christian)

The article loses credibility with this statement.