• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Creationists and ID Proponents, please.....

sun rise

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Most, yes, to be sure. But not all. There are many more pathways that they could down.

For example, when I looked at the one Vedic item, I found it only addressed a very tiny part of Hinduism. For example I found the following. But this Wikipedia item on the Hindu view of evolution has a flaw since there was indeed coexistence of modern humans with earlier forms for a long time. The idea of strict succession has been disproven.

The Sanskrit epics of the Hindus mention several exotic creatures including ape-like humanoids.[33] Some Hindus see this as a proof of the historicity of their mythological characters and as support for the theory of evolution in their texts. The Ramayana speaks of the Vanaras, an ape-like species with human intelligence, that existed millions of years ago. According to the Ramayana alongside these ape-men existed modern humans. Thus, according to these ancient writings, the status of such creatures was a state of coexistence rather than evolution.[34]
 
Wandering Monk

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
sun rise said:
Most, yes, to be sure. But not all. There are many more pathways that they could down.

For example, when I looked at the one Vedic item, I found it only addressed a very tiny part of Hinduism. For example I found the following. But this Wikipedia item on the Hindu view of evolution has a flaw since there was indeed coexistence of modern humans with earlier forms for a long time. The idea of strict succession has been disproven.

The Sanskrit epics of the Hindus mention several exotic creatures including ape-like humanoids.[33] Some Hindus see this as a proof of the historicity of their mythological characters and as support for the theory of evolution in their texts. The Ramayana speaks of the Vanaras, an ape-like species with human intelligence, that existed millions of years ago. According to the Ramayana alongside these ape-men existed modern humans. Thus, according to these ancient writings, the status of such creatures was a state of coexistence rather than evolution.[34]
Click to expand...

Why try to make religion sound scientific?
 
SalixIncendium

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
Wandering Monk said:
At the top of the article: Cremo, Michael and Richard Thompson, 1993. Forbidden Archaeology: The hidden history of the human race. Los Angeles: Bhaktivedanta.
Click to expand...

Ugh. ISKCON.

Alright, I'll give you that one, but I still contend that it's drivel, as these knobs certainly don't speak for the Vedic or Hindu community as a whole and most certainly don't speak for me.

For anyone else interested in knowing who these two are...

Michael Cremo - Wikipedia
Richard L. Thompson - Wikipedia
 
Wandering Monk

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
SalixIncendium said:
Alright, I'll give you that one, but I still contend that it's drivel, as these knobs certainly don't speak for the Vedic or Hindu community as a whole and most certainly don't speak for me.

For anyone else interested in knowing who these two are...

Michael Cremo - Wikipedia
Richard L. Thompson - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

OK, so back to my question. Why try to make religion sound scientific? Religious assertions about the universe have been content with magical thinking for thousands of year. Why change now? Is this some sort of reflex against growing irrelevance of religious thought in an increasingly secular world?
 
SalixIncendium

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
Wandering Monk said:
OK, so back to my question. Why try to make religion sound scientific? Religious assertions about the universe have been content with magical thinking for thousands of year. Why change now? Is this some sort of reflex against growing irrelevance of religious thought in an increasingly secular world?
Click to expand...

Aside from these two, what other Hindus have you known to make their religion sound scientific?

I won't presume to speak for all Hindus, but Hinduism (and other dharmic religions for that matter) doesn't typically do this. If science proves our worldview wrong, we adapt our views to conform with science.

There is absolutely no conflict between my own worldview and science.
 
sun rise

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Wandering Monk said:
Why try to make religion sound scientific?
Click to expand...
There is no reason to do that. My point was that the long list of claims and responses was not complete. There are many more claims and responses that could be added to the list.

Whether God did or did not create the laws of the universe has nothing to do with how they operate. Theology and science are two different and separate things.

A secondary point is to be careful about citing certain things. At one point we thought that modern humans replaced earlier forms. Now we know that both new and old forms existed at the same time and had children.
 
74x12

74x12

Well-Known Member
Wandering Monk said:
Check you arguments against this index. You will find that most of your arguments have been addressed, the issue clarified and creationist claims rebutted.

Please stop wasting your and our time repeatedly making these claims refuted a thousand times.

An Index to Creationist Claims
Click to expand...
How do you know some of these counterpoints haven't been rebutted themselves? A debate is a two way street. As for people bringing up refuted claims. I see atheists or skeptics do that frequently enough.
 
Wandering Monk

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
74x12 said:
How do you know some of these counterpoints haven't been rebutted themselves? A debate is a two way street. As for people bringing up refuted claims. I see atheists or skeptics do that frequently enough.
Click to expand...

I would be happy to read them. Can you direct me to some?
 
dianaiad

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
Howard Is said:
For the same reason I would worry about teaching a parrot to say “Here kitty kitty !”

‘Educating’ children to not be able to differentiate science and religion is monstrous.
Click to expand...

My problem is that I belong to a religion that figures that science and religion don't contradict each other.

As in....Religion is about Who, and Science is about how. I personally don't see a problem.

It's sort of like.....just because we figure out how a cake was baked, it doesn't mean that someone didn't bake it. (and no, don't take that analogy further than it goes)!
 
Howard Is

Howard Is

Lucky Mud
dianaiad said:
My problem is that I belong to a religion that figures that science and religion don't contradict each other.

As in....Religion is about Who, and Science is about how. I personally don't see a problem.

It's sort of like.....just because we figure out how a cake was baked, it doesn't mean that someone didn't bake it. (and no, don't take that analogy further than it goes)!
Click to expand...

That’s fine, if you separate the two domains.

I have long said that religious ideas are poetic, and deal with feelings.
I have no problem with poetry.

Poetry and religion are for the heart. That is no trivial thing, and a person ignores their heart at their peril.

It may inform our use of science, our aims and motivations. But it isn’t science.

As sufis say, you cannot grow wheat with the recipe for making jam.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top