Creationism
Offline The book of Genisis says creation happened in six days, and the Bible clearly states it was indeed days, but this doesn't mean it happened six thousand years ago.
The evidence, as pointed out to me in another thread, strongly points to a very old earth (young compared to universe standards I suppose,) I know the geneologies in Genisis are used to figure out when it happened, but it should be obvious to anyone, especially when learning of uninterrupted historical accounts from the supposed time period exist, that this method of calculating the age of the earth is flawed.
So I accept my mistake in regards to this. I commited an error thinking this way and insisting upon it for most of my life. However, the earth being 4.7 billion years old (she hides her age well I'd say) I do not see why Genisis couldn't just be an accurate account of the first six days.
I dare not commit the fallacy of circular reasoning and claim the bible proves itself, I rather hold to the posistion that it takes faith and faith alone to believe this.
That being said, I understand there to be alot of evidence in favor of evolution, and ID never sounded convincing to me(being born deaf), but could it be, as most of civilization lived without the discovery of evolution for many years, that the discovery of how the creation account can fit into science rests undiscovered?
Thank you for your time.
- Login to post comments
You seem to have a few things confused about evolution and the forming of the planet. The two are covered by entirely different parts of science and are, in fact, completely different.
One thing that really bothers me about Creationism is that they completely throw out the notion of evolution although we can see it (very obviously) on a day to day basis. For example, the many different breeds of dogs, the changing of the moths (butterflys) color to a MUCH darker shade over in london, etc. I simply don't understand why they toss out something that a creator could have added into the 'design' I don't know.
There is nothing, I repeat, NOTHING about creationism that says evolution does not exist.
Thank you
You really have no idea how rare you are? You are nice, polite, intelligent, open-minded etc. I have to wait years before occassionally finding people like you. Most of the time I just get spit at for wanting to have a discussion about these things, or some just not wanting to have a discussion at all. You may recognize these familiar names:
-God Said it, I believe it, that settles it!
-Ken Ham
And you have so eloquently pointed out that Mr Ham is, well, the only friendly way to say this is- absurd.
Which means you have successfully proven yourself vastly more intelligent than the most prominent creationist in the world. I would congratulate you but it is not much of a compliment. Somewhat akin to me telling you that you are more intelligent than your dining utensils.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Have you seen my dining utensils? They performed a huge musical number in Beauty and the Beast!
Joking aside, Thank you for the compliment. I've seen Ken Ham speak on television. He is a habitual strawmaner(new word!) I don't suffer fools lightly, even if they sleep in my tent.
To the first response made, I've not disputed evolution, I cannot rightly dispute something I do not understand. My point was Genisis and it's possibility of happening.
Ahh then I apologize for reading it wrong. I immediately assumed that a thread called Creationism in a board entitled evolution was stating that Evolution was false.
Anyway, yes, everything has a possibility of happening. Pigs can fly, Yngwie Malmsteen will play a song with some soul, , I'll sprout wings and fly off into space, Harry Potter books will interest me etc. What people discuss is the probabilty of such things.
For example, it is much more likely that a Yngwie Malmsteen will play a song with some soul before pigs fly or a Harry Potter book will interest me. Also, you can say some things with almost absolute certainty.
For example, I am almost absolutely certain that the game Warhammer Online will hit shelves sometime next year. Of course, it is possible that it won't for any number of reasons (funding stops, the world ends, major earthquake destroying the companies office buildings in California, etc) but which is the most likely to happen?
Well, the game hitting shelves sometime next year is the most likely with funding stopping shortly after... although they've got a near infinite budget from EA and Games Workshop.
So yes, a Creator could have made the universe and everything in it in six days and then design it in such a way that scientists, in the future, will test it and say that it was formed over billions of years. Is it likely?
I agree with your point, however faith doesn't require it to be likely. I see all around me, in friends and family, the upmost value placed on faith, here in the words of atheist philosophers, historians and evolutionary biologist, this value is placed on logic.
And yet, while I read the evidence presented and points made, a voice whispers in my head, telling me it's wrong, and my friends and family, whom I place great faith and dependance on are right.
If tradition had a voice, it would sound like the whisper in my head.
Why? Simply curious is all.
My answer would only beg the question.
This post interests me greatly.
Why?
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Genisis could not be an accurate account of the first six days of the earth or for that matter the entire universe because
1) the timing is off
2) the events are out of order or completley made up
3) genisis has the creation of life very near the beginning of Earth, which is not the case at all.
Heres what probably happened in the first six days of the earth's existance: It was probably an amorphous ring of dust around a newly formed star. Six days would have been absolutley nothing.
The earth is not only billions of years old, it took at least a billion to even become a rocky sphere, and billions more to form an atmosphere. It took several hundred million years for the moon to seperate from the earth and cool. It took millions of years for the crust to cool and harden, for water to form at the surface, and the first organic molecules to settle. It then took another few hundred million years for single celled organisms to evolve, then another few hundred million years for the first multicellular organisms to evolve. It was only in the last 1.8 million years that humanoid mammals even existed, and less than half a million years for homo sapiens to appear. And all of written history is only about the last 7,000-8,000 years.
All of that has evidence to back it up. I don't care how metaphorical you think the bible is, it simply does not fit with the evidence. And for that reason, it is simply wrong.
Of course. Anything can be undiscovered. However, there is a lack of evidence to support the idea of any god or other magic at present.
Science is open and willing to accept it if you can prove it whereas the bible shuts the door and says you believe this way, no questions asked and is NOT open to change.
Providing proof lies on the claimant, not the skeptic.
FOC,
This is an argument from ignorance. May I suggest you see the following link:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_argument_from_ignorance_and_its_uses_and_abuses
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca
It's okay to hear voices in your head as long as you don't talk back to them.
If tradition was substance enough for practice, our social evolutionary progress would be completely bust. We'd still be placing people in jail for making those accursed spherical earth proclaimations. Or chopping the hands off of gormandizing children sacreligious enough to break the 8th commandment and reach for a loaf or wheat based comestible without a peso to purchase.
And though your concepts do not result in an erroneous result, can you not see why your appeal to common practice is not valid enough to live by?
In regards to the voice inside your head...
I receive and am provoked by the same inner monologging that tells me, "I don't currently think this way, therefore, I shouldn't believe it..." But after the ellipsis, I add a special adjoining of practice. "...until I do a copious amount of research and understand it to a degree where I can make a decision for myself.
"I boot religious people religiously."