simian

Jolene555,

It may be worth your time to read some articles or books by Kenneth Miller. I believe he is a biologist, a devout Roman Catholic, and an outspoken defender of evolution (a strong critic of the Young Earth Creationist stance). I think he probably goes into how his Catholicism meshes with the physical world.

Simian

Shadowy Man

So...uh.. what's the point in listening to evolution theories? Why even bother?

ruby-soho

Jolene,

I own Dr. Miller's book, Finding Darwin's God, and it is well worth it. It is not too technical but yet covers most of the pertinent data. For starters, try this excerpt from the final chapter of the book here.

You mentioned to rem 'your truth'. I think you're mistaking truth with Truth. I think that the 'truth' rem is referring to relates to knowledge claims we can make about the natural world (please correct me if I'm wrong, rem). The natural world, the world we ALL live in, is the one thing we ALL have in common regardless of personal religious views. Claims made about our natural world can be shown to be true or false by the use of evidence. The best way we have up to this point in finding out what is 'true' and 'false' about our natural world is science (a methodological way of evaluating knowledge claims). For instance, you claim that the earth is appox. 6,000 years old. Such a claim is easily evaluated by the evidence we have at our disposal and shown to be false. Note, science does not deal with 'proof.' ALL scientific conclusions are tentative because some new evidence or observation might come along which could cause you to re-evaluate your conclusion.

Hope that helps,

D

Oolon Colluphid

Hey folks, let's play nice. I mean, extra nice (and that means me too ).

Jo, perhaps you could tell us what it is about evolution you disagree with? I’ll lay good money on you simply having been misdirected... but maybe your reasoning is valid. Please, let’s see it.

Best wishes, Simon

jolene555

evolution, science, is based on fact. it's compiled with information we can see, smell, taste, touche, or see. evolutionists do not just have brain farts to come up with new theorys, they base it on some fact.
creationism is based on faith. i know that it's hard to be able to understand how i can believe in things that seemingly have no factual basis, just "words in a book". we believe what the bible says and no more, no less, and so our "theory" never changes.
my disagreement is this . . . that if i am going to believe in something based on fact, it's gonna all have to be there. can you prove it? if i am going to deny my faith for science, i am damn well gonna make sure it's right. frankly, i have not heard a single theory that did not have holes in it. why should i believe in something that you all believe if y'all don't even know if you're right? summed up: i have the ability to believe something purely out of faith, but if you can't have faith in science, the only way i could be secure in believing it would mean i had no doubts. still too many doubts, folks

perfectly happy to remain a "close-minded" creationist freak, until i have reason not to

-jo

this made sence in my head, kinda

Principia

Well jolene, it has been mentioned to you before by others (if not by me) that your faith does not have to be "denied" if order for you to accept scientific evidence that supports a theory. Unless, of course, you are a strict Biblical literalist -- that is that you are so hypocritical of the Bible that you find absolutely no fault with it. Are you?

Another point: Science never operates in complete black and white, absolute right and absolute wrong. There are plenty of scientific theories and facts that you utilize every day, I am willing to bet, without questioning its complete veracity. Ever take a couple of antibiotics in the morning? How do you know they work? Where is the absolute proof? Or are you one of those Christians who refuse medical assistance in the name of your God?

Duvenoy

Let the record show that I too, am playing nice. But somebody's gotta do it. Here's an excellent reference for the evolution of hominids.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

I've pretty much given up on arguing Creation vs. Evolution. It's too difficult to penetrate a closed mind. I merely put forth the evidence that I have (the above is only a scratch on the surface), and let folks make up their own minds.

By the by, I have no faith in the theory of Evolution. I merely accept it as the best explanation for certain, biological process' put forth thus far. . If a better explanation should show up, backed by suffcient, empirical evidence, I'll drop the ToE and never look back. As would most of us here.

Anyhow, welcome to II.

doov

PS: The Talk Origins ia a site well worth exploring, whatever your beliefs. Hope you do so and enjoy it.

Edited to correct some of the usual.

simian

Nothing in science has all the facts. Science is conditional - it can (and will) change as new facts come to light. And I mean all of science. Yes, we have extremely good evidence that the earth revolves about the sun, but as for absolute TRUTH - no.

But somehow I doubt you deny the existance of atoms just because phycists are still working on figuring exactly what atoms are made of and how the pieces fit together.

Likewise, the evidence that humans and chimps share a common ancestor is not in doubt - studies from various areas of study have consistently shown this. But the scientists are still working on exactly which of the ancient critters is an ancestor to humans, which are dead ends, and which are the ancestors to the chimps.

Not knowing all the components of an atom does not make atomic theory wrong, not knowing the entire lineage of divergent species does make evolution wrong.

If you have some specific question on evolution, I have no doubt somebody on this board can give you a correct answer (either something they already know, or something they look up).

Simian

Happy Wonderer

Welcome Jolene!

We are a ornery bunch here, don't let it get to you. Also I have noticed that since you can't see or hear expressions in the written word, people often sound angrier in email then they really are. Sometimes people (myself included) try to be funny and upon re-reading it comes off as merely mean. (I noticed this effect a lot at a large corporation that I worked at, many times -- even though I hate meetings -- I found it better to cut off an email chain by calling a meeting of the people involved.)

I do have a serious question for you that should provoke some interesting discussion. Do you think that our knowledge of the material world has increased in the last 200 years? 2000 years? (IOW, are we more knowledgable now, or more deluded?)

Is that good? Should we try to keep increasing our knowledge?

This is a real question, I'm curious about your point of view. I was not raised a theist so I have hardly any first-hand experience to go from.

HW

Mageth

jolene:

why should i believe in something that you all believe if y'all don't even know if you're right?

If you "believe in" creation through faith, then you, by definition, already believe in something you don't know is right.