I see my self as a scientist in the Astronomy field within 10 years, so creationism does not settle with me too well.

Info that I've compiled on creationism + a few others:
- World and universe created 8-10 thousand years ago.
- God created it in the 7 days; no more, no less.
- All others that don't believe in this are wrong and should be punished.

Info on my side:
- Universe approx. 13.5 Billion years old
- Don't know what happened before 10^-43 seconds of this universe (unknown physical laws are holding there)
- Who gives a shit on what others believe, let them believe what they want and don't force your beliefs on them.

Here's what I'm asking: I want info on both sides of this wonderful argument and I personally don't just want the christian background on the creation stories. I know there are thousands of them throughout the world.

Edit: Typos are a sin!!!!!....not really

[ 08-29-2003: Message edited by: Vise the Stompy ]

[ 08-29-2003: Message edited by: Pvednes ]

quote:

---

Vise the Stompy stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
You really shouldn't judge the entire christian faith based off of a few extremist's beliesf. Many of us belive that the universe is indeed very old and the "7 days" is actually 7 phases of creation. The Hebrew word for a long period is also the same word for day. So when the book was first translated into Latin, they translated it as day. Further more, we are all not preachy and tend to just live life as honestluy we can and be examples ot others.

---

I Didn't mean to judge the whole christian faith this way, thus the reason for the quotation marks in my first line. For truth in the matter I'm a baptized Christian of the Disciples of Christ, we're the liberal bunch of the conservatives in all reality.

I just want a deeper thought on what they see and what other people see.
Yes you are right in stating that there are many beliefs within the faith that actually are looking at how we should live our lives not the history. I'm asking to make the picture a little more clearer.

quote:

---

Random enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
The creation theory is just that, a theory, no based set facts, yet no bizzare lies. My opinion is that the only way to find out all of the things that are unexplanible to all mankind, is when your dead.

---

Its polite to post an introduction thread so people know who you are.

quote:

---

Razor Model 2000 was programmed to say:
I Didn't mean to judge the whole christian faith this way, thus the reason for the quotation marks in my first line. For truth in the matter I'm a baptized Christian of the Disciples of Christ, we're the liberal bunch of the conservatives in all reality.

I just want a deeper thought on what they see and what other people see.
Yes you are right in stating that there are many beliefs within the faith that actually are looking at how we should live our lives not the history. I'm asking to make the picture a little more clearer.

---

quote:

---

Mr. Gainsborough had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
Its polite to post an introduction thread so people know who you are.

---

I dont think it matters whatsoever. Hell, it's cooler to not post a intro-thread

quote:

---

Verily, Mr. Gainsborough doth proclaim:
Its polite to post an introduction thread so people know who you are.

---

quote:

---

Vise the Stompy had this to say about Cuba:
See that silver in his name it means he has been here longer that you foo. This one of the many Ecers that have simply changed their name.

---

I'm confused. The name is that horrid pink, he doesn't have an alt account says his profile, and the newest member is "Random" so says the forum home page.

quote:

---

Mr. Gainsborough had this to say about pies:
I'm confused. The name is that horrid pink, he doesn't have an alt account says his profile, and the newest member is "Random" so says the forum home page.

---

vise thinks you mean razor.

quote:

---

Mr. Gainsborough had this to say about Duck Tales:
I'm confused. The name is that horrid pink, he doesn't have an alt account says his profile, and the newest member is "Random" so says the forum home page.

---

Aside from the rare fanatics, few Christians interpret the Bible literally anymore. Many believe full well in evolution, and that it was god's will to create the world in such a way. Scoff if you want, but having faith in a benevolent power greater than youself is the point of religion, not quibbling about how the world was created.

From the mouth of an agnostic.

EDIT:

quote:

---

- Who gives a shit on what others believe, let them believe what they want and don't force your beliefs on them.

---

Heh. I've met way more zealous scientists in my time than practicioners of any religion. If a point on your side is to let somebody believe what they want, why did you even post this? LET THEM BELIEVE WHAT THEY WANT.

[ 08-29-2003: Message edited by: Sentow, Maybe ]

quote:

---

Vise the Stompy had this to say about Punky Brewster:
You confused me, I thought you were talking about Razor. It is late and I am tired.

---

Just go back to talking about religion.

My opinion is to not worry about the creation of earth, space, the universe, etc. because its done and over with. Focus on the now!

quote:

---

Sentow, Maybe attempted to be funny by writing:

Heh. I've met way more zealous scientists in my time than practicioners of any religion. If a point on your side is to let somebody believe what they want, why did you even post this? LET THEM BELIEVE WHAT THEY WANT.

---

I'm being asked to become a deeper involved member of my church for one, and two I'm after to see what their point of view is, it's the same as looking through a different refference frame as described by Einstein. I want a clearer picture than I currently have seeing as my view is biased, and doesn't hold all sides on the view of creationism.

I agree with Vise and the views he brings forth, I have somewhat the same views.

quote:

---

Razor was listening to Cher while typing:
I'm being asked to become a deeper involved member of my church for one, and two I'm after to see what their point of view is, it's the same as looking through a different refference frame as described by Einstein. I want a clearer picture than I currently have seeing as my view is biased, and doesn't hold all sides on the view of creationism.

I agree with Vise and the views he brings forth, I have somewhat the same views.

---

Awright den!

quote:

---

Razor had this to say about Robocop:
I'm being asked to become a deeper involved member of my church for one, and two I'm after to see what their point of view is, it's the same as looking through a different refference frame as described by Einstein. I want a clearer picture than I currently have seeing as my view is biased, and doesn't hold all sides on the view of creationism.

I agree with Vise and the views he brings forth, I have somewhat the same views.

---

Biased or not, it doesn't change the fact that creationism has no evidence at all in it's favour.

[ 08-30-2003: Message edited by: Pvednes ]

quote:

---

This one time, at Liam camp:
I dont think it matters whatsoever. Hell, it's cooler to not post a intro-thread

---

I'm so cool

quote:

---

IN THE BEGINING God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was* formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he seperated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night". And there was evening, and there was morning - the first day.

* or 'became'

---

That quote, and footnote, are from the bible. Notice how it says that the heavens and earth were there BEFORE the first day? How much before isn't said though, nor is what was going on there during that time.

I've heard it thought that Lucifer was in charge of the earth during that time, and gave rise to creatures as he saw fit. Then, during or after the fall, God got rid of Lucifer's creations. I never really agreed with that, but the idea of Lucifer making T-Rexes is too cool to forget. Either way though, that time before God started making "modern" earth works for the time of Dinosaurs. Please note that it doesn't say how long it took him to get around to breaking things into day/night. It could have been right away, or millions of years.

Also, please note that the Sun and Moon don't get created till the fourth day. So, without a sun and moon, who can say that the "day" of god is the same as the "day" of man? A day for God could have been a human second, or (once again) millions of years. Plenty of time for him to create things through the use of evolution.

While I don't believe in the Bible any more, these are some of the ideas I've heard tossed around on the subject. Make of them what you will.

quote:

---

Peanut butter ass Shaq Death of Rats booooze lime pole over bench lick:
I actually knew some one who thought taht god had put the fossils in the ground to test the faithful.

---

That's what we call a "self-reinforcing delusion"

Some of you might do well to think that through before posting in threads like this. Just a thought.

[ 08-30-2003: Message edited by: Gydfather ]

And that's more or less what scientists used to tell us about the beginning of the universe.

Some scientists say that it was an infinitessimally small point which somehow contained all matter...and then exploded. And that created the current universe, possibly from some sort of Omega Point of a previous universe. (though that's mostly science fiction).

The fact is that science is constantly finding out how little they really know (For instance, up until recently everyone assumed that the universe's expansion was slowing down, and that eventually the universe would become a colder, darker place as entropy finally settled in, drained the energy of the universe, etc....now indications are that the universe is expanding at a quickening rate, causing all sorts of "Dark Matter" theories). They know a lot about nothing. Which is the great thing about science; there's always more to find out.

Religion, on the other hand, seeks to fill in that "Big Nothing", because Big Nothings tend to creep people out. From the dawn of time, religions of one sort or another have tried to fill in the Big Nothing with all sorts of ideas. Spirits in the rocks and trees and animals (animism), many gods controlling everything (animistic spirits turning into polytheism), to gods vs demons (bipolar polytheism), to the "One Gods" (monotheism).

And the most important thing that people who bicker about religion (pro or con) forget is that it doesn't matter in the greater scheme of things if an almighty God created all existence in seven days, seven phases, or whatever. It doesn't matter that there's no explanation of where "God" came from, or for that matter how long the world has been around. It doesn't matter that Science hasn't filled up all the Big Nothing with lots of explanations yet, or that we're constantly exploring new explanations for old problems that tend to invalidate some aspects of what we knew about science (Earth being the center of the universe, Earth being flat, etc).

The important thing is progress.

See...Science can explain the order of reality. It can. It'll take a LONG time, but Science will work it out. On the other hand Religion, at it's core, gives us philosophy. Science without philosophy is cold and purely logical...not at all what humans are. Philosophy run rampant without the leavening of science leads to primitive mysticism and superstition.

You need both a philosophy AND science.

And the fact is that at it's core, for any fallacies of rampaging Religion, most religions preach roughly the same thing: "Be good to one another, do your best to live the best life you can, and remember we're all in it together". That fact includes Taoist philosophy, Christian philosophy, Moslem philosophy, Buddhist philosophy, Hindu philosophy, and any other long-standing religious or philosophical ideology.

So if you live your life the best way you can, doing what you can to see to it that you do Good rather than Evil, then the specific details of creationism (Christian or otherwise) don't really matter. It's a matter of preference.

quote:

---

Pvednes had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
And, I think Deth wins the thread.

---

CREATION THEORY

Man came with the big bang. Eventually, the apes turned crazy and fucking enslaved humanity. Then came Skynet and the Matrix, in which Freddy fought Jason. Fucking apes came back again. They died at the hands of Hitler, though, who in turn died to Napolean, who died to Soup at Hand.

Eventually, Genghis Khan got laser guns and fucking rocked the shit.

I win.

quote:

---

Mr. Parcelan thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
CREATION THEORY

Man came with the big bang. Eventually, the apes turned crazy and fucking enslaved humanity. Then came Skynet and the Matrix, in which Freddy fought Jason. Fucking apes came back again. They died at the hands of Hitler, though, who in turn died to Napolean, who died to Soup at Hand.

Eventually, Genghis Khan got laser guns and fucking rocked the shit.

I win.

---

Okay I concede: You win.

quote:

---

Pvednes had this to say about (_|_):
Okay I concede: You win.

---

You would pay me more respect if I was a mongol with a laser gun.

quote:

---

Verily, Death of Rats doth proclaim:
I actually knew some one who thought taht god had put the fossils in the ground to test the faithful.

---

I think I will bash my head against a wall a few times now.

Anyways, the belief set you posted there is called young Earth creationism. As mentioned, it takes from Genesis literally about how the Earth was created. Laymen who believe in young Earth creationism are actually quite fewer than many would have you believe, and Christian theologists who believe in it are vastly in the minority. Its an antiquated idea that's grown less and less popular, especially over the last ~50 years.

The majority of both laymen and theologians believe in a mix of creationism and evolution. And a gasp escapes from the atheists in the thread. If you don't read the Bible literally, and its really meant not to be read literally at all, there's no problem with believing that Genesis took place over several thousand years rather than seven days. Its even easier to believe this when you remember that according the Old Testament people normally lived to be a couple hundred years old. How's that to be explained? Bible timeframes aren't exactly something that should be taken literally. Anyways, I digress. There's no reason for Christians to discount evolution, and the majority of theologians accept it just as much as they do evolution.

But don't take my work for it anyhow. Going to the Southern Baptists for theology is about the worst thing you can do if you want some answers. My recommendation is you find a way to contact a Jesuit priest from the north of either coast, they'll have a far different view that is more in line with how smart theologians think.

Creationism breaks down into several stratifications: Literal Biblical Creationism(Also known as young-earth creationism), and the Intelligent Design 'Theory'. I'll explain why I put theory in quotations in a moment. YEC is, indeed, a theory. But theories, unlike beliefs, are not created equal.

Before I get into specifics, let's take a moment to talk about theories. Theories explain observed phenomona. The theory of gravity explains why we stay on the ground. EM explains why we see the way we see. Relativity explains why time and length dialation occur. Evolution explains how the smorgasmord of life on earth became so darned diverse. So does the YEC theory(ID does not, but I'll explain why in a sec).

So how do we pick a better theory from two competing ones? Well, that's easy. Which theory is the simplest and fits observed phenomona the best? That's your winner.

So what does each assert? YEC asserts that the Bible (KJV or NIV) is 100% factually accurate. These are the people who believe that the earth is 6000 years old and that God created everything as we see it. These are the most vocal creationists, as in the ones who want it taught in schools and whatnot. So how does YEC theory stack up against evolution? In two words: it doesn't. The evidence suggested by YECs is simply ludicrous. It sounds convincing, but even a rudimentary understanding of physics, chemistry, and probability shatters the facade of their claims. Let's take an example:

quote:

---

From some YEC literature:

The earth's magnetic field decays exponentially, with a half-life of 1,400 years. Projecting in reverse, the earth's age comes out as -- surprise! -- 10,000 years or less.

---

Surprise indeed. This is a one-dimensional argument based around a half-truth. The earth's magnetic field isn't decaying; it's changing its orientation! The dipole component is decreasing, yes, but the non-dipole component is increasing. How do we know this, you ask? Take a trip up to Greenland sometime. Scientists have observed in ancient rock and ice the dipole orientations at that time. The earth has changed its orientation many times in the past, sometimes even reversing entirely! So, by taking a lie and extrapolating out to infinity, you get a very convincing sounding, but ultimately fraudulent argument.

Extrapolation of a known variable term out to infinity is a common tactic with YECs. Anyone with a shred of common sense should be able to see through them.

So, YEC doesn't seem like it has a lot of evidence? Well that's all well and good, but isn't it simpler to say "God did it," than this wacky evolution theory? Well, sure, simpler to say, but it fails to answer a critical question: how did God do it? Did He create machinery of some sort for the task? What did He do after He was finished with them? Destroy them? How did he do that? YEC seeks to explain none of this.

OK, so YEC is out, but what about intelligent design? That explains the little idiosyncracies you come across far better than evolution! There's only one problem: intelligent design is not a theory. But we'll overlook that for the moment and take a closer look at it.

Intelligent design is based on the idea of irreducible complexity. Dr. Behe, if you would:

quote:

---

"By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution."

---

In other words, there exists a system which could not have evolved naturally, so God(our intelligent designer) must have made it. If the scientific community has not figured it out, it must have been divine intervention. This is the general hubris to which the ID community subscribes. But if this were true, then in early history, none of the naturalistic laws applied, since we were unable to figure them out!

So suppose you have a system which is "irreducibly complex." I say, "No, for you can break that system into a simpler one which still functions. You say. "Oh. Well, what I really meant was that THAT system was irreducibly complex. I win." That's right folks. Intelligent design is unfalsifiable. If I showed two thousand systems were not irreducibly complex, the intelligent design adherants would still claim victory if I could not easily explain #2001. The argument is inherently fallacious, being an appeal to ignorance (ID's screaming "Prove it! Prove it!" over and over again).

Intelligent design has another critical failing: it cannot predict anything! Evolution theory readily predicts the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, or the devastation wrought by introducing foreign creatures into areas where they have no natural predators, but ID can do neither of these things. It discards natrualistic phenomona in favor of mysterious and unknowable intentions of a divine being. It can be argued that ID does predict the same things evolution predicts, but only by accepting the occurance of evolutionary processes, which makes "intelligent designer" a redundant term anyway.

Simply put, the lack of predictive capabilities disqualifies intelligent design as a theory. If it cannot make predictions, it cannot be compared to observed phenomona. Therefore, it is untestable and plain ol' no good. Time, technology, and scale make testing evolution difficult. The basic philosophy of science and logic make testing ID impossible. All theories have at least some predictive capabilities, and having none makes ID useless as a scientific theory.

Now, it's easy to say "Oh, well looks like SOMEBODY has a beef with creationists!" But that's a patent untruth. I really don't care what you believe. There's no harm in believing God or an intelligent designer created everything. There's no harm in believing the Bible is factually accurate. The harm comes when people take their belief and try to assert it as fact. They try to get it taught in science classes. They try to make something personal into something objective.

"But wait, assclown! Don't scientists do the same thing? Making us believe in evolution and whatnot?" Tempting as that sounds, it's not true. Evolution will continue whether you deny it or not. Gravity will continue to work even if you believe you can fly.

"OK, OK, jive turkey. Why the hubbub in the first place? There's more to life than science, anyway!" There's more to life than math, too, but you don't see anyone running around saying "If 3 times 4 equals 12, then why are there still 3's and 4's?" now do you?

The validity of creationism as fact is nil. Its validity as belief is immeasurable, since it's impossible to compare beliefs. It's the best belief you could hold and the worst you could hold. And in the end, it doesn't matter what you believe. Science isn't trying to keep the Christian man down, it's just dealing with the facts.

A more popular explanation for the 7 day creation is that when God created the heavens and earth, he accellerated time. So on the first six days, he made time move quickly. (billions of years). This would explain how earth has such a long standing history.

It's just of course a hypothesis, and in the end doesn't really matter, since it's all based on faith anyways. But it would make sense, if God can create the universe, he could easily speed up time on a whim.

quote:

---

Reynar painfully thought these words up:
A more popular explanation for the 7 day creation is that when God created the heavens and earth, he accellerated time. So on the first six days, he made time move quickly. (billions of years). This would explain how earth has such a long standing history.

---

That gives me another idea. What if, when God made the Earth and the things He put on it, He made them old in stead of new?

God is eternal and all powerful. When He created things, say the Earth for example, maybe He created it by causing things to happen long ago in the past to form it. Rewriting history to change the present, so to speak.

This way, God could have indeed created the universe and everything 8-10 thousand years ago, but they could still be 13.5 billion years old.

Come to think of it, that explains the dino bones too. They're just a by-product of Him creating (through evolution) the creatures He wanted.

[ 08-30-2003: Message edited by: Palador ChibiDragon ]

quote:

---

Pvednes had this to say about Tron:
Biased or not, it doesn't change the fact that creationism has no evidence at all in it's favour.

---

Never once stopped people with faith and belief.