Is your creation or evolution perspective infallibly correct?

[VinceBlaze]

-

 

[VinceBlaze]

-

 

[VinceBlaze]

-

 

[Tomk80]

I don't believe that agreement is reachable. We're just spinning our wheels at this point.

You might not think agreement is reachable, but that doesn't mean your handwaving is suddenly in any way a decent way to act.

 

[VinceBlaze]

You might not think agreement is reachable, but that doesn't mean your handwaving is suddenly in any way a decent way to act.

Thanks for your comments. I've deleted my previous posts. Sorry to have offended you.

 

[Tynan]

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?

A evolutionist's stance must reflect the current research, as additional information is collected and new discoveries made the evolutionist's view must necessarily be trimmed and honed to take on board this additional knowledge.

In this respect an evolutionist's stance can never be infallible - almost by definition of his or her reliance on evidence.

A creationist's stance is non-negotiable and fixed - end of story. A religious person can simply never be wrong about his religion, that includes all religions, even if in direct contridiction to each other - they will still, to the death (quite literally) cling on to their inerrancy.

In this respect a creationist's stance will always be infallible - almost by definition of his or her allegence to the accepted holy book of the location they were born in to.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

A creationist's stance is non-negotiable and fixed - end of story. A religious person can simply never be wrong about his religion, that includes all religions, even if in direct contridiction to each other - they will still, to the death (quite literally) cling on to their inerrancy.

In this respect a creationist's stance will always be infallible - almost by definition of his or her allegence to the accepted holy book of the location they were born in to.

I disagree. A stalwart creationist won't admit that his or her position may be wrong, but that doesn't mean the position is infallible. The only thing we know of for certain is our own existence; any sensory input is liable to tampering (although this is a remote, but still exant, possibility). So, neither Creationism nor Evolution are infallible.

But having said that: speciation (and therefore evolution) has been observed under lab conditions. What more do you want?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Skip to part 5 for the speciated plants and animals :thumbs:

 

[razzelflabben]

A evolutionist's stance must reflect the current research, as additional information is collected and new discoveries made the evolutionist's view must necessarily be trimmed and honed to take on board this additional knowledge.

In this respect an evolutionist's stance can never be infallible - almost by definition of his or her reliance on evidence.

A creationist's stance is non-negotiable and fixed - end of story. A religious person can simply never be wrong about his religion, that includes all religions, even if in direct contridiction to each other - they will still, to the death (quite literally) cling on to their inerrancy.

In this respect a creationist's stance will always be infallible - almost by definition of his or her allegence to the accepted holy book of the location they were born in to.

Truely an interesting post, but I don't think I can agree with this. Maybe a "religious" person would fit this discription but most of the "christians" I know, understand that they don't understand all the things of God, this allows plenty of room for adjustments in one's belief. There are absolutes that do not waver, such as Jesus is the only way (to use a cliche), but beyond that, there are always things to learn. So I guess the bottom line is that if you believe your ideas are infallible, then what you believe is like your religion and that doesn't limit you to beliefs about God, but can extend into a belief about anything, from origins to God and anything in between. In fact I have run into some evolutionists that behave as if evolution is teir religion.

So I guess all this rambling boils down to I don't totally agree or disagree with you but you made an interesting point none the less, thanks.

 

[RichardT]

almost by definition of his or her allegence to the accepted holy book of the location they were born in to

LOOK AT ME, I SOUND SMART BY SAYING SATEMENTS LIKE THIS ONE

I was born into an agnostic/atheist family but I became a christian myself, how do you explain that?

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

LOOK AT ME, I SOUND SMART BY SAYING SATEMENTS LIKE THIS ONE

I was born into an agnostic/atheist family but I became a christian myself, how do you explain that?

Do you live in the Middle East? If not I think you missed the point.

 

[Skaloop]

LOOK AT ME, I SOUND SMART BY SAYING SATEMENTS LIKE THIS ONE

I was born into an agnostic/atheist family but I became a christian myself, how do you explain that?

The predominant religion on Canada is Christianity. Of course it's no surprise that you became a Christian. If you were in, say, Tibet, you'd have found Buddhism. If you were in Israel, you'd have become Jewish.

 

[razzelflabben]

The predominant religion on Canada is Christianity. Of course it's no surprise that you became a Christian. If you were in, say, Tibet, you'd have found Buddhism. If you were in Israel, you'd have become Jewish.

Seems to me that pretty much so everyone tests what they have been taught to belive at one point in their lives. What one then ends up believing depends on a lot of factors, things like comfort zone, peer or community pressure, degree of indoctrination, truth found by individual, etc. any or all of these things can play a role in what belief, religious or otherwise a person holds to in the end. This is also why governments often like to get kids in school, (see nazi Germany for an example)schools like to keep the kids, and colleges and universities are usually biased, because it provides a better oppertunity for them to spread their beliefs. It is also why many choose home schooling, so that they can do their own indoctrination. Indoctrination is all around us, we can't escape it, what we need to learn over time, is how to sort out the indoctrination from the facts and look at things objectively. Difficult thing to do.

In fact, this is what I practice on our orgins issue, and I get into a lot of trouble from both sides. I think the real thing is that if you hold to your indoctrinations, you don't have the answers to the hard questions, just repeat the same thing over and over. For example, the creationist (those who believe because of indoctrination) might use the arguement of the flood or probability for pretty much everything. And though these arguements have a place, it isn't for every arguement. The evolutionist (those who believe because of indoctrination) will do the same thing with their own arguements, fossil record, similarities. (over simplification of course) Thus both sides refuse to listen because they "already know" what will be said and they don't agree so they don't have to listen to anything being said, which tears down all communication.

Anyway, just my two cents worth.

 

[Tynan]

I disagree. A stalwart creationist won't admit that his or her position may be wrong, but that doesn't mean the position is infallible.

I kind of agree, what I am realy saying is a evolutionist by definition cannot be infallible, whilst a creationist by definition will always be infallible to themselves.

You are quite right to point out that either stance does not effect the actual reality of the situation. (If I read you correctly)

 

[Tynan]

almost by definition of his or her allegence to the accepted holy book of the location they were born in t

LOOK AT ME, I SOUND SMART BY SAYING SATEMENTS LIKE THIS ONE

I was born into an agnostic/atheist family but I became a christian myself, how do you explain that?

I shall ignore your indignant opening.


The first part of your statement (I was born into an agnostic/atheist family) is simply an exception to the rule, I am sure there are many such examples, but in general you will expect a child born into a devoutly Muslim country or community to become Muslim - as you would expect a Child born in a devoutly Jewish country or community to become Jewish.

The second part (but I became a christian myself) more than likey reflects the location you were raised in.

If you were born into a Bosnia community in the 1950s your statement may have read: I was born into an agnostic/atheist family but I became a Muslim myself, how do you explain that?

I explain your Christianty as the predominant religion of your location.

 

[Chalnoth]

The person who believes in evolution due to indoctrination is sure to be relatively rare. After all, evolutionary theory did not arise in competition as blind faith combatting blind faith: it arose out of logic and reason. Evolution without logic and reason is empty, and a person who believes evolution without logic and reason can easily be swayed to a religious perspective on creation.

By contrast, those belief systems that we have that are based on no evidence (i.e. religion) came out of competition among many other blind belief systems. As such, it is only those belief systems which are easy to spread that have spread. It is only those belief systems that are convincing to the person ignorant about the workings of the world that have flourished. Evolutionary theory cannot possibly hope to compete against faith without logic and evidence.

 

[Tynan]

Dp !

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The person who believes in evolution due to indoctrination is sure to be relatively rare. After all, evolutionary theory did not arise in competition as blind faith combatting blind faith: it arose out of logic and reason. Evolution without logic and reason is empty, and a person who believes evolution without logic and reason can easily be swayed to a religious perspective on creation.

By contrast, those belief systems that we have that are based on no evidence (i.e. religion) came out of competition among many other blind belief systems. As such, it is only those belief systems which are easy to spread that have spread. It is only those belief systems that are convincing to the person ignorant about the workings of the world that have flourished. Evolutionary theory cannot possibly hope to compete against faith without logic and evidence.

Well said! Let us be thankful, then, that Evolution has an armada of evidence and logically inferred conclusions to combat blind faith. Now, if we could just educate the unfortunate majority of the US people (their leader included)...

 

[Tynan]

Seems to me that pretty much so everyone tests what they have been taught to belive at one point in their lives. What one then ends up believing depends on a lot of factors, things like comfort zone, peer or community pressure, degree of indoctrination, truth found by individual, etc. any or all of these things can play a role in what belief, religious or otherwise a person holds to in the end. This is also why governments often like to get kids in school, (see nazi Germany for an example)schools like to keep the kids, and colleges and universities are usually biased, because it provides a better oppertunity for them to spread their beliefs. It is also why many choose home schooling, so that they can do their own indoctrination. Indoctrination is all around us, we can't escape it, what we need to learn over time, is how to sort out the indoctrination from the facts and look at things objectively. Difficult thing to do.

In fact, this is what I practice on our orgins issue, and I get into a lot of trouble from both sides. I think the real thing is that if you hold to your indoctrinations, you don't have the answers to the hard questions, just repeat the same thing over and over. For example, the creationist (those who believe because of indoctrination) might use the arguement of the flood or probability for pretty much everything. And though these arguements have a place, it isn't for every arguement. The evolutionist (those who believe because of indoctrination) will do the same thing with their own arguements, fossil record, similarities. (over simplification of course) Thus both sides refuse to listen because they "already know" what will be said and they don't agree so they don't have to listen to anything being said, which tears down all communication.

Anyway, just my two cents worth.

Razzelflabben, atheism's very root is its lack of indoctrination (to teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically). Religions very root is to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.

Is there room to question god's inerrancy in religion ?

Evolution is not indoctrinated by its very reliance on evidence, this need for evidence, proof or logical viability negates an uncritical acceptance.

Would you at least agree on this ?

___________

I would like to post the following from Loudmouth which he posted over in the Americans win Nobel for Big Bang study thread in Creation & Evolution - as I feel it sums up the perceived infallibility of the religious mind.


Loudmouth wrote: The best example is the statement of faith found at the Answers in Genesis website:

"No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."


____________________________

 

[razzelflabben]

The person who believes in evolution due to indoctrination is sure to be relatively rare. After all, evolutionary theory did not arise in competition as blind faith combatting blind faith: it arose out of logic and reason. Evolution without logic and reason is empty, and a person who believes evolution without logic and reason can easily be swayed to a religious perspective on creation.

wikipedia
Indoctrination is instruction in the fundamentals of a science, or other system of belief (such as a philosophy or religion).

Thus by definition, you are wrong. Indoctrination can occur on any subject. And in fact, children are indoctrinated from very early ages to accept evolution as fact. It is especially harmful when the logic and reasoning are not taught along with the concepts, which is most often the case, at least until high school where you have a chance at a good science class, but still rare. Therefore, your point here seems to be missing the entire idea of what indoctrination really is.

By contrast, those belief systems that we have that are based on no evidence (i.e. religion) came out of competition among many other blind belief systems. As such, it is only those belief systems which are easy to spread that have spread. It is only those belief systems that are convincing to the person ignorant about the workings of the world that have flourished. Evolutionary theory cannot possibly hope to compete against faith without logic and evidence.

Actually, many if not most people believe that thier faith is based in logic and evidence. The problem is that the logic and evidence is not scientific in nature. Therein lies the difference, it is not that they lack logic and evidence, but that the logic and evidence is not testable by traditional scientific methods to such a degree as is acceptable to the scientific community.

 

[razzelflabben]

Razzelflabben, atheism's very root is its lack of indoctrination (to teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically). Religions very root is to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.

How did atheism come ito our discussion? Atheism brings up a different discussion I am afraid and by definition, is considered a religion, thus would fall into the same category. Now one can argue this understanding, but by definition, it is a religion. Thus I would think it best to discuss this seperately, but I may have missed something.

Is there room to question god's inerrancy in religion ?

Absolutely, you haven't been to many debates in the religion and doctrinal threads have you?

Evolution is not indoctrinated by its very reliance on evidence, this need for evidence, proof or logical viability negates an uncritical acceptance.

By definition, it can and often is indoctrination, see previous post. I am not trying to start a war here, only looking at the actual definitions and seeing how things line up and by definition, evolution is a possible indoctrination and many times I have witnessed it being taught in such a way.

Would you at least agree on this ?

By traditional understanding, we might talk about an agreement, but by actual defintion, you would be wrong.

___________

I would like to post the following from Loudmouth which he posted over in the Americans win Nobel for Big Bang study thread in Creation & Evolution - as I feel it sums up the perceived infallibility of the religious mind.


Loudmouth wrote: The best example is the statement of faith found at the Answers in Genesis website:

"No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."


____________________________

I would love to actually discuss the scriptural record sometime for what it says or doesn't say, I think it could end a lot of arguements to actually review it for "literal" meaning, literal meaning it's intent and what is not negotiable, but when I asked to do this before, it was only between one other person and myself and for the purpose of proving what she believed. Why can't we just look at it and study it for what it says or doesn't say, forget if you believe it or not, just see what does it says. I find a lot of discrepencies between what it actually says and what the so called literal creationists believe.