Any Creationists here?

So Glad · 12-03-2007 08:14PM #1

If so, feel free to explain why and I'll do likewise.

philologos · 12-03-2007 08:34PM

Yeah, I believe that God created our world. I think the majority of theists do.

wolfsbane · 12-03-2007 09:17PM

So Glad said:

If so, feel free to explain why and I'll do likewise.

Your poll only offered either/or, but I tick two:
Yes, because the bible said so.
Yes, because I've evidence to prove it.

The former carries the greater weight, but the latter is a welcome assurance.

philologos · 12-03-2007 10:16PM

To elaborate, I believe the world and its people are far too great to have been created from nothingness, and without a creator. Everything around me, and even the civilisation we live in seems so carefully crafted, that it must have been guided by God.

robindch · 12-03-2007 11:29PM

> Yes, because the bible said so.
> Yes, because I've evidence to prove it.
> The former carries the greater weight, but the latter is a welcome assurance.

I know we've mentioned it quite a few times on the creationism thread, but just to point it out briefly here: evidence cannot prove a conclusion. Instead, it can only disprove it.

This applies to "evidence from design" as much as any other kind evidence, and towards any conclusion, creationist or otherwise.

However, it would be interesting to see if creationists accept this -- comments?

Michael G · 12-03-2007 11:42PM

What do you mean by a creationist? Do you mean a fundamentalist Christian, or someone who believes in intelligent design, or just someone who doubts the theory of evolution?

robindch · 12-03-2007 11:55PM

> What do you mean by a creationist?

By "creationist", I would assume that the OP means somebody who asserts that the world is so apparently complicated that it must have been designed and could not have arisen through evolutionary selective pruning or any other non-interventionist model. OP - please correct me if this isn't right.

So Glad · 13-03-2007 12:47AM

I'm not an atheist, I believe in a God that forged this universe BUT I don't think that happened 6,000 years ago, and for good reasons.

I see nobody has bothered proving themselves...

I will when challenged...

bonkey · 13-03-2007 11:03AM

So Glad wrote:

I see nobody has bothered proving themselves...

It can't be proven either way. I assume you mean that no-one has bothered to argue their case...

I would point you to the thread currently running to 246 pages (yes, two hundred and forty six pages...thats not a typo) on the subject of creationism. If you think thats "nobody has bothered", then I suggest that you set your standards too high.

Alternately, if you think they should reproduce some/all 4904 (as of post-date) posts here in order to gain some sort of validity, may I suggest that it would be easier for you to read that thread then for them to retype/copy-paste the content.

I will when challenged...

I challenge you to prove your case.

So Glad · 13-03-2007 11:26AM

Ah, I hadn't seen that thread. Is there any way I can delete this one?

PoleStar · 13-03-2007 11:41AM

Why delete it? I know its all been done before, but its always interesting to hear creationist "evidence" or is that an oxymoron as usually the creationist argument is based on the absence of any other explanation.

Going back to the whole "gap" theory.

" I say the world is flat. Cant prove it's not? well then it must be, so there"
(Caveman A to Caveman B, 6 million BC).

Etc

So Glad · 13-03-2007 12:43PM

Well, ok lets keep this running.

The reason I and many others believe we were a result of evolution is because of the sheer age and genetic progress of a lot of things that inhabit the Earth. Take for example, Trilobites (Imagine huge wood lice). They have been verified as having been millions of years old. Not only can we prove this by DNA dating, but also by dating the rock it was embedded in. We can verify that species have evolved because we have obtained many, many species of creatures that are essentially the same creature, bar a few features which it has obtained over time due to its habits & habitat. Furthermore, recent experiments involving flies have also verified that evolution DOES happen. The experiment consisted of flied being subject to different scenarios like less light, more oxygen etc. Each of these groups developed body parts to make up for the deprivation or over indulgence to the given scenario. This experiment was done to flies because they are one of the fastest evolving creatures on Earth.

We also observe a distinct pattern of dinosaur evolution throughout the early ages of our planet, until the comet/meteor that was said to have wiped them out. After that, we see from the collection of humanoid bones and other things, that we could quite possibly be the byproduct of monkeys, although it is arguable that intervention by either Gods or extraterrestrial interference could have sparked our present form. Which makes me think. If dinosaurs were not millions of years old, but according to creationists "Around at the early times of the old testament", then you'd THINK that there might have been SOME mention of a mammoth predator of the size a verbosity of a T-Rex or even similar predators. Not a word is said.

Not only does rock, dinosaurs & animal fossils rule out the possibility that our universe is 6,000 years old, but so does our ancient architecture. We know that the earth HAS to be older than 6,000 years because we have found ruins and scriptures from the ancient Sumerian race (among other) that date back to 10,000 - 8000 BC. That brings us back 10,000 - 12,000 years. There is also lots of evidence that shows possible human workings in the years of 12,000 BC +, if you are to believe the writings of Graham Hancock, among others.

Also, I believe the argument for creationism is weak and arrogant:

Me: "How do you know the universe is 6,000 years old?"

Creationist Christian: "Because the Bible said so."

Me: "But how do you know the Bible is true?"

Creationist Christian: "Because it was written by God."

Me: "How do you know that?"

Creationist Christian: "Because it says so."

Me: "So the gospels written by "Mark", "John", "Mathew" and sorts doesn't deter you from thinking God wrote it?"

Creationist Christian: "Nope."

Me: "Right. . ."

I don't get the logic here. . .

Cantab. · 13-03-2007 12:48PM

So Glad wrote:

I'm not an atheist, I believe in a God that forged this universe BUT I don't think that happened 6,000 years ago, and for good reasons.

I see nobody has bothered proving themselves...

I will when challenged...

Hi. The Catholic Church has not declared that the world is 6,000 years old.

The "ordinary week" interpretation of Genesis 1 is the most common point of view amongst those out to bombard the Catholic Church (a rampant phenomenon on the so-called "Christianity" section of boards.ie). I would give much more credence towards the "framework" interpretation myself, but the magisterium has not spoken infallibly on the issue. Therefore, Genesis 1 is still open to interpretation.

Whilst a literal interpretation is convenient, simplistic and appears to justify a firmly-held point of view, it is misguided to have ommitted the (well documented) reality of what the Catholic Church has to say on the matter.

Importantly, what has been ifallibly defined (with regard to Genesis I) is that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Vatican I).

That God created the world in six days shouldn't be interpreted as literal time periods, but as a symbolic means of presenting what God did in creation. Pope Pius XII warned us: "What is the literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in the speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East, as it is in the works of our own time. For what they wished to express is not to be determined by the rules of grammar and philology alone, nor solely by the context; the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period would be likely to use, and in fact did use. For the ancient peoples of the East, in order to express their ideas, did not always employ those forms or kinds of speech which we use today; but rather those used by the men of their times and countries. What those exactly were the commentator cannot determine as it were in advance, but only after a careful examination of the ancient literature of the East" (Divino Afflante Spiritu 35–36).

Remember, the sun was only created on the fourth day: this to me means that the 24-hour day as we know it today did not apply to the book of Genesis (also, the Hebrew word "yom" sometimes means a longer than 24-hour period, as in Genesis 2:4). I am quite happy that the book of Genesis represents a literary framwork into which the events of creation are fitted - again, a "careful examination of the ancient literature of the East". The Catholic Church does not fear science (as many boardsies on here seem intent on insisting).

So Glad · 13-03-2007 12:53PM

Cantab. wrote:

Hi. The Catholic Church has not declared that the world is 6,000 years old.

The "ordinary week" interpretation of Genesis 1 is the most common point of view amongst those out to bombard the Catholic Church (a rampant phenomenon on the so-called "Christianity" section of boards.ie). I would give much more credence towards the "framework" interpretation myself, but the magisterium has not spoken infallibly on the issue. Therefore, Genesis 1 is still open to interpretation.

True, there has been a lot of interpretation regarding Genesis but I don't think people should warp words or presume this is what God meant to suit their agenda. If the face value of what is written says that it was 7 DAYS, it is 7 DAYS, not millions of years. If it was meant to have a symbolic meaning, surely it was state so. It doesn't so therefore, it means 7 days...

Cantab. · 13-03-2007 01:10PM

So Glad wrote:

True, there has been a lot of interpretation regarding Genesis but I don't think people should warp words or presume this is what God meant to suit their agenda. If the face value of what is written says that it was 7 DAYS, it is 7 DAYS, not millions of years. If it was meant to have a symbolic meaning, surely it was state so. It doesn't so therefore, it means 7 days...

What agenda might that be do you think?

Why would God say the world was created in exactly 168 hours when clearly science tells us otherwise? Remember, all science is inspired by God. And by the way: modern 20th century science also tells us that space and time are in fact intimately related to one another - we live in 4-dimensional space/time (there may be even more dimensions according to string theory). So at the time of creation, time and space as we know it, may have been curled in on one another. Now, how could you explain this (in the absence of Einstein) to someone living in AD 0? Therefore the literal translation of 7 solar days would be meaningless in the context of the huge amounts of energy that science predicts were present at the beginning of the universe, which would lend itself to a distortion of the space/time that humans have evolved in. Hence the literary framework.

So Glad · 13-03-2007 01:23PM

It's true that time/space could've been so different at the time of the big bang that would be a probable time line.

I like the way you think young man!

bonkey · 13-03-2007 02:30PM

So Glad wrote:

The reason I and many others believe we were a result of evolution is because of the sheer age and genetic progress of a lot of things that inhabit the Earth.

While I agree with your basic premise here, I would point out that Creationists are not necessarily limited as a group to Young Earth Creationists (or YECs). There are also OECs who will agree with the statement above and still be creationists.

So I'm going to assume for the time being that it is only YECs who's beliefs you are challenging.

They have been verified as having been millions of years old.

...on the assumption that our dating methods are accurate. YOu and I may accept that they are, but if you've started going through that other thread I mentioned, you'll see that challenging the veracity of dating methodology is a key strategy in many YEC arguments.

Not only can we prove this by DNA dating

This is where I winced. No, we most certainly cannot prove it by DNA dating. We don't have DNA. We have fossils. Indeed, if we did have DNA of trilobites, it would fairly-conclusively establish that they did not die out 250 million years ago as our current scientific stance says they did.

We can verify that species have evolved because we have obtained many, many species of creatures that are essentially the same creature, bar a few features which it has obtained over time due to its habits & habitat. Furthermore, recent experiments involving flies have also verified that evolution DOES happen.

Again, you seem to assume there is no response to this. YECs have a response. It mightn't be one I give much credence to, but they have a response.

This response typically focusses on the fact that our model of evolution works over such long timescales that what we can observationally verify is only a tiny fraction of that. They allow that what we're seeing looks like it matches the model, but that we are making incorrect assumptions and that our main flaw lies in extrapolating the current situation backwards.

We also observe a distinct pattern of dinosaur evolution throughout the early ages of our planet, until the comet/meteor that was said to have wiped them out.

If our dating techniques (amongst other things) are sufficiently accurate - a key point which would be (and is) challenged by YECs.

although it is arguable that intervention by either Gods or extraterrestrial interference could have sparked our present form.

Careful. If you allow intervention by god/gods, then you implicitly allow that God may have planeted the evidence to make it look like a young earth is really an old earth.

I would also suggest that aliens have no place in the current discussion, but hey...if you think they help establish the logical, scientific basis of your argument, don't let me stop you

Which makes me think. If dinosaurs were not millions of years old, but according to creationists "Around at the early times of the old testament", then you'd THINK that there might have been SOME mention of a mammoth predator of the size a verbosity of a T-Rex or even similar predators. Not a word is said.

There's no end of things which science would place concurrent with the early times of the old testament which also aren't mentioned. Does this mean they too didn't exist and that science is wrong?

Not only does rock, dinosaurs & animal fossils rule out the possibility that our universe is 6,000 years old,

No, they don't. Our dating techniques rule the possibility out.

so does our ancient architecture. We know that the earth HAS to be older than 6,000 years because we have found ruins and scriptures from the ancient Sumerian race (among other) that date back to 10,000 - 8000 BC. That brings us back 10,000 - 12,000 years.

Again...if our dating techniques are correct.

Also, I believe the argument for creationism is weak and arrogant:

You will have YECs who tell you that your argument for evolution and an old earth is equally weak and arrogant. Insulting someone else's position doesn't lend itself to detailed debate. Leave it to those who disagree with you to stoop to such tactics, rather than engaging in pre-emptive retaliation.

Me: "But how do you know the Bible is true?"

How do you know our dating techniques are accurate?

Think about it...if you just trust that others have verified it, you're basically saying that it was established by a system in which you have sufficient belief and trust...which isn't a million miles from a position like the following:

Creationist Christian: "Because it was written by God."

I should also point out that you have on occasion, in another forum, discarded conventional scientific wisdom on grounds not much different to that you simply don't believe it.

It's true that time/space could've been so different at the time of

Don't go there. Really...

Once you go there, you allow that time may not always have functioned the way it does currently. Once you do that, you implicitly allow that all of our dating techniques may be completely wrong.

I like the way you think young man!

He's effectively gotten you to accept that the cornerstone of all of your date-based arguments may be false. In effect, he's gotten you to admit that what you believe to be proof is based on an assumption holding true which you've acknowledged may not be.

Now...given that you acknowledge that it may be false...go back to your comment about the YEC argument being weak and arrogant as it insists the truth of something which may not be....

Cantab. · 13-03-2007 03:01PM

bonkey wrote:

Don't go there. Really...

Once you go there, you allow that time may not always have functioned the way it does currently. Once you do that, you implicitly allow that all of our dating techniques may be completely wrong.

I'd say the modern dating techniques we have today are very accurate. The earth has been of stable energy for quite some time now, low energies where the x,y,z vectors of space are far more predominant than the time vector - under these conditions, modern dating techniques are perfectly plausible.

Time, as humans perceive it, is quite different to the precise way in which time and space interact at a physical level.

Talliesin · 13-03-2007 03:50PM

bonkey wrote:

This is where I winced. No, we most certainly cannot prove it by DNA dating. We don't have DNA. We have fossils.

Good point.

bonkey wrote:

Indeed, if we did have DNA of trilobites, it would fairly-conclusively establish that they did not die out 250 million years ago as our current scientific stance says they did.

This is where I winced. "Your proof is invalid, therefore I am right" does not follow.

It's much more accurate to say that if we did have DNA of trilobites and if we could establish dating data on the basis of it then we'd have another piece of evidence that could be used here.

To suggest that it would be accepted by those who are currently Creationists and those who are currently not stretches credulity further than anything currently suggested by either side in this debate.

Cantab. · 13-03-2007 04:20PM

The above poll is il-thought-out and infers nothing.

Yes, because the bible said so. But not in the way the ignorami would like to believe.

mickoneill30 · 13-03-2007 04:25PM

Jakkass wrote:

To elaborate, I believe the world and its people are far too great to have been created from nothingness, and without a creator. Everything around me, and even the civilisation we live in seems so carefully crafted, that it must have been guided by God.

Well then God would be far too great to have been created from nothingness. What did he evolve from?

Cantab. · 13-03-2007 04:44PM

mickoneill30 wrote:

Well then God would be far too great to have been created from nothingness. What did he evolve from?

Well if that's the case, that is, there is no God, then by implication, your life is but a cosmic joke. You might as well just top yourself now.

God created the world, and Jesus, the Son of God was revealed to us 2000 years ago. If you fail to see this, I fear you have been somehow deluded or you have somehow deluded yourself.

If you believe there is no God, it's silly really - you ought at least to have a punt on Pascal's wager. The risk of not believing in God tends to infinity.

bonkey · 13-03-2007 04:59PM

Talliesin wrote:

This is where I winced. "Your proof is invalid, therefore I am right" does not follow.

I didn't say that it would suggest "therefore I am right". I said it would suggest only that "your proof is invalid". If we had DNA, it couldn't be hundreds of millions of years old. If its hundreds of millions of years old, we cannot have DNA. The two are mutually incompatible. If you prefer, there is no scientific model under which they two are not mutually incompatible.

It is an important point, though. From almost everywhere I've seen the YEC perspective argued, I am more-or-less that the aim is not to prove their own theory, but rather to cast as much FUD as possible on the scientific model.

I'm not sure if its because they think they can then hoodwink people into accepting that this is some binary position (Bush referring to ID as "the other theory" and not "an other idea" springs to mind) so if science is wrong, YEC must be right...or if there is an aim to make sure that even if people don't accept YEC they at least reject the scientific model.

To suggest that it would be accepted by those who are currently Creationists and those who are currently not stretches credulity further than anything currently suggested by either side in this debate.

They'd just gleefully point and scoff at the incompatability of claiming we had DNA and that it was 250,000,000 years old. It would show there was a serious flaw in scientific modelling, as DNA simply wouldn't survive that long. So either our DNA research would be wrong, or our dating, or both. I don't think they'd care which...as long as it was grounds to say "you are wrong" to the scientific POV.

LFCFan · 13-03-2007 05:00PM

If the Christian movement hadn't been so successful in converting people through the ages we could be a country of Muslims or some other religion that did a better job of recruitment and then this argument would be about something completely different. It beggers belief that so many people base their faith on something that only came about because of extremely effective marketing techniques. The Bible is a book full of cherry picked stories written by men who lived long after Jesus was on earth. Any of you in here that are so sure of God and Christianity would be a different religion if your parents were. How can you base your faith on something that was forced upon you before you could even talk?

bonkey · 13-03-2007 05:07PM

Cantab. wrote:

Well if that's the case, that is, there is no God, then by implication, your life is but a cosmic joke.

Why?

If not having a creator makes existence a joke, then by your own logic isn't God's existence in turn a joke?

You might as well just top yourself now.

Again...if having no creator means you might as well top yourself, the implication is that God - having no creator - should top himself/herself/itself.

As it is, I can find meaning in my life without sharing your beliefs. I don't particularly appreciate you telling me I should top myself because you don't share my beliefs.

God created the world, and Jesus, the Son of God was revealed to us 2000 years ago. If you fail to see this, I fear you have been somehow deluded or you have somehow deluded yourself.

I'm sure the 2/3 of the world's population who aren't Christian would appreciate that argument - that they are deluded.

I'm especially sure that the 50% of the world's population who are religious but are not Christian would be especially swayed by your argument that they are deluding themselves.

If you believe there is no God, it's silly really - you ought at least to have a punt on Pascal's wager.

Pascal's Wager is short-sighted. For the infinite number of possibilities of what I should base my beliefs on, why should I pick this particular one "just in case"? There's an infinite number of possibilities where picking this one belief "just in case" would end me in everlasting trouble. THats one against infinity....not what I'd consider great odds.

Pascals wager is not a good bet unless one already believes in which case it doesn't apply anyway.

<edit>
I'm not sure if you didn't fully read the Wiki page you linked to, or simply didn't think we would, but the following line in the criticisms section is quite instructive:

This requirement for such an assessment of utilities suggests that Pascal's Wager should be regarded as a criterion by which the coherence of one's existing beliefs can be judged, rather than as a method of choosing what to believe.

So...explain to me why I should have a punt on it?

</edit>

jc

LFCFan · 13-03-2007 05:16PM

Cantab. wrote:

You might as well just top yourself now.

Why should life only be worth living if there is a God? My life has plenty of meaning and I get to enjoy it without worrying about some Beardy Auld Fella in the Sky who is going to judge me for my sins and cast me down to Hell if I don't do things the way he wants me to do them. And I also don't have to listen to the pure rubbish that comes out of the Bible and get preached to every Sunday.

po0k · 13-03-2007 05:20PM

We are biochemical processes living out our entropy.

Our purpose is to apply any positive influence we can exert to better the conditions for the processes to follow.

Cantab. · 13-03-2007 05:23PM

SyxPak wrote:

We are biochemical processes living out our entropy.

Our purpose is to apply any positive influence we can exert to better the conditions for the processes to follow.

Cosmic joke it is so.

philologos · 13-03-2007 05:27PM

Faith is a very personal thing. It is impossible to show ones faith, or to prove that God exists by this faith to someone who has never experienced it before. That's my take on it.

Son Goku · 13-03-2007 05:40PM

Cantab. wrote:

Cosmic joke it is so.

Well it'd be a Cosmic non-statement, you'd need a Cosmic Prankster for a Cosmic joke.

robindch · 13-03-2007 05:50PM

> Well if that's the case, that is, there is no God, then by implication, your
> life is but a cosmic joke. You might as well just top yourself now.

This is a point which is brought up frequently by religious believers, but as ever, the logic is stopped half-way -- if life is a joke because somebody does not believe there is a god, then why should it stop being a joke if somebody does believe there is one?

> you ought at least to have a punt on Pascal's wager.
> The risk of not believing in God tends to infinity.

Somebody as bright as you ought to have no trouble seeing the fairly obvious holes that Pascal's Wager has. As bonkey points out, as well as the possibility of a god which rewards unjustified belief, there could also be an infinite number of other gods which condemn it, or which might condemn you for justifying your belief upon a logical argument, when you're supposed to just believe. The risk of using Pascal's wager tends to infinity.

Any Creationists here?

Creationism? 29 votes

Comments