Creationsim vs. Science

[Ricette]

Big_Wave_Legacy

I understand the half lives, and its exponential decay, but I still dont believe it. there a bunch of crap that goes with it. what if the mineral breaks into 2 parts then decayse. the surface are expands and the decay rate will be somewhat faster. there are more flaws with it. anyways, i personally believe there was life on earth before adam and eve and its even supported in the bible.

Thats not all that true Legacy. Yeah it could break into to parts, but, the mineral composition and all that determines how it decays. Its nothing ot do with expanding surface area or whats exposed to what. That composition has a set decay ratio. You are trying ot twist that sort of thing around and find flaws so you can discredit it and try, desperately I may add, to prove that your knowledge is superior. I am not expert either but neither did I sleep through all my science courses when I was in school. Things have their own decay rate, their carbon half-lives that are specific to that composition of minerals. You can break a rock in two and they will decay at the same rate.  

[Zukato Nokuchiku]

My english is very limited. My opinion is simply that creationists arguments is a joke and even the Pope (atleast John Paul) has said that the Evolution theory does not at all go against God in any way. I stand with science on this matter.

Most creaionists are from USA if im correct, the idea was from there. So I guess that many from Europe does not....umm...I think the word is "cope" with this idea. VenomfangX on youtube is a perfect example to an extreme Christian, takes the words from the Bible way to literally. The Bible is full of symbols, with the jews who is from another culture and language and the way they think when the scriptures was written.

Not to mention the different meanings many words have on the Old testament. Its atleast good that anybody can look up the different words and what they mean, but that depends on how big and "new" your book is.

The Old testament stories holds much more than we know. Creationists reads them a little funny though...  

[Xahmen]

VenomfangX makes me happy in my manly girly-bits.
Also, hey there new person, I'm Vanessa, the guild's male to female transgender.  

[SUPERSQUIRRELX]

Hmm, well I beileve that God made the world in 7 days abot 10,000 years ago. But God is omnipotent, he could have made the world in 6 billion years ago. It doesn't matter in the long run.

The problem is when Atheists use it as an excuse to disprove God.  

[The_Lord_is_My_Shepard]

I believe that God created the Heaven and the Earth in 6 days (Because in Genesis chapter 1, it says that God used the seventh day as a day of rest.), and I believe that the World is only 6,000 years old.  

[divineseraph]

Thistle_Whistle

I believe that God created the Heaven and the Earth in 6 days (Because in Genesis chapter 1, it says that God used the seventh day as a day of rest.), and I believe that the World is only 6,000 years old.

lol carbon dating.  

[Zukato Nokuchiku]

Criticism (YEC=Young earth creationism)

Scientific

YEC was abandoned as a mainstream scientific concept around the start of the 19th century.[67] Many scientists see it as a faith position, and regard attempts to prove it scientifically as being little more than religiously motivated pseudoscience. In 1997, a poll by the Gallup organization showed that 5% of US adults with professional degrees in science took a YEC view. In the aforementioned poll 40% of the same group said that they believed that life, including humans, had evolved over millions of years, but that God guided this process; a view described as theistic evolution, while 55% held a view of "naturalistic evolution" in which no God took part in this process.[68] Some scientists who believe in creationism are known to subscribe to other forms such as Old Earth creationism which posits an act of creation that took place millions or billions of years ago, with variations on the timing of the creation of mankind.

Critics argue that every challenge to evolution by YECs is either made in an unscientific fashion, or is readily explainable by science, and that while a gap in scientific knowledge may exist now it is likely to be closed through further research. While scientists acknowledge that there are indeed a number of gaps in the scientific theory, they generally reject the creationist viewpoint that these gaps represent fatal, insurmountable flaws with evolution. Those working in the field who pointed out the gaps in the first place have often explicitly rejected the creationist interpretation. The "God of the gaps" viewpoint has also been criticized by theologians, although creationists claim that their models are based on what is known, not on gaps in knowledge.

Christian YECs adhere strongly to the concept of biblical inerrancy, which declares the Bible to be divinely inspired and therefore scientifically infallible and non-correctable. This position is considered by devotees and critics alike to be incompatible with the principles of scientific objectivity. The creationist organizations Answers in Genesis (AiG) and Institute for Creation Research (ICR) require all members to pledge support for biblical inerrancy.

YECs often suggest that supporters of evolution theory are primarily motivated by atheism. Critics reject this claim by pointing out that many supporters of evolutionary theory are in fact religious believers, and that major religious groups such as the Roman Catholic Church and Church of England believe that the concept of biological evolution does not imply a rejection of the scriptures. Nor do they support the specific doctrines of biblical inerrancy proposed by YEC. Critics also point out that workers in fields related to evolutionary biology are not required to sign statements of belief in evolution comparable to the biblical inerrancy pledges required by ICR and AiG. This is contrary to the popular belief of creationists that scientists operate on an a priori disbelief in biblical principles[69]. They also discount Christian faith positions, like those of French Jesuit priest, geologist and paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who saw that his work with evolutionary sciences actually confirmed and inspired his faith in the cosmic Christ. Nor do they believe the views of Catholic priest Fr. Thomas Berry, a cultural historian and eco-theologian, that the cosmological 13 billion year "Universe Story" provides all faiths and all traditions a single account by which the divine has made its presence in the world.

Proponents of YEC are regularly accused of quote mining, the dishonest practice of isolating passages from academic texts that appear to support their claims while deliberately excluding context and conclusions to the contrary.

Quoted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism  

[promised_child]

I believe in creationism mixed in with the adaptation part of evolution. i also believe that the Earth is older than creationists want to think. but how long is one day to God? remember Jesus said He is comming SOON, 2000 years ago. as Christians and Scientists we need to stop putting God into our 24-hour-day box. was there life before Adam and Eve? Maybe. but maybe "Lucy" is Eve? how long were they in the Garden? the Bible doesnt say, but since they were at that time immortal, does it really matter? Big Bang and MOST of evolution are plasable, if you put God back into the equations, because nothing colliding with nothing does not something make. oh hey by the way, i am back! xd  

[Crimson Raccoon]

promised_child

I believe in creationism mixed in with the adaptation part of evolution. i also believe that the Earth is older than creationists want to think. but how long is one day to God? remember Jesus said He is comming SOON, 2000 years ago. as Christians and Scientists we need to stop putting God into our 24-hour-day box. was there life before Adam and Eve? Maybe. but maybe "Lucy" is Eve? how long were they in the Garden? the Bible doesnt say, but since they were at that time immortal, does it really matter? Big Bang and MOST of evolution are plasable, if you put God back into the equations, because nothing colliding with nothing does not something make. oh hey by the way, i am back! xd

The Bible doesn't say specifically how long Adam and Eve were in the garden, but it gives the impression that it wasn't very long. And it says that Adam was 130 years old when he gave birth to Seth, which wasn't even his first child, and he had all his children outside of the garden. So they were definitely in the garden for less than 130 years, most likely less than 100, and possibly even much less than that although we can't know for sure. But at least we do know that there was no human life before Adam and Eve, and that they only lived in the Garden for a certain amount of time and not for ages.

Also, I find it perplexing that people are so quick to believe that Lucy is an ancestor of humans. Most people aren't told that the fossil is only 3 feet tall. Rather small, isn't it? There is nothing special about it other than that it's a chimp-like animal that seems to have walked upright. That automatically makes it a human ancestor in many scientists minds, I guess.

It's true that the Big Bang doesn't really contradict anything in the Bible except for issues with time scales, but time is relative anyway and not a constant. There's no real way to be sure how long anything took to occur back then, or what perspective God was measuring it from in Genesis. Something that can take millions of years to occur in one perspective can only take seconds to occur in another perspective. That's an extreme example, but it's true, particularly around black holes.

Hi by the way, welcome back, you were here before I guess?  

[promised_child]

Crimson Raccoon

promised_child

I believe in creationism mixed in with the adaptation part of evolution. i also believe that the Earth is older than creationists want to think. but how long is one day to God? remember Jesus said He is comming SOON, 2000 years ago. as Christians and Scientists we need to stop putting God into our 24-hour-day box. was there life before Adam and Eve? Maybe. but maybe "Lucy" is Eve? how long were they in the Garden? the Bible doesnt say, but since they were at that time immortal, does it really matter? Big Bang and MOST of evolution are plasable, if you put God back into the equations, because nothing colliding with nothing does not something make. oh hey by the way, i am back! xd

The Bible doesn't say specifically how long Adam and Eve were in the garden, but it gives the impression that it wasn't very long. And it says that Adam was 130 years old when he gave birth to Seth, which wasn't even his first child, and he had all his children outside of the garden. So they were definitely in the garden for less than 130 years, most likely less than 100, and possibly even much less than that although we can't know for sure. But at least we do know that there was no human life before Adam and Eve, and that they only lived in the Garden for a certain amount of time and not for ages.

Also, I find it perplexing that people are so quick to believe that Lucy is an ancestor of humans. Most people aren't told that the fossil is only 3 feet tall. Rather small, isn't it? There is nothing special about it other than that it's a chimp-like animal that seems to have walked upright. That automatically makes it a human ancestor in many scientists minds, I guess.

It's true that the Big Bang doesn't really contradict anything in the Bible except for issues with time scales, but time is relative anyway and not a constant. There's no real way to be sure how long anything took to occur back then, or what perspective God was measuring it from in Genesis. Something that can take millions of years to occur in one perspective can only take seconds to occur in another perspective. That's an extreme example, but it's true, particularly around black holes.

Hi by the way, welcome back, you were here before I guess?

way to use the theory of relativity! you make an excellent point, and time is relative. so the earth could, (and honestly most likely is) older than creationism teaches. what people need to understand is we could ALL be way off base here. Creationism and Evolution are THEORIES, mostly un-provable ones because we cant recreate the basic tenants of either. I find it irritating that Chritians accept creationism blind because it has the word Creation, meaning we were created, also that Athiests accept evolution blind because it goes against what christians believe, and "science says so"
neither theory makes sence on their own, its only when you combine Biblical creationism with Darwinian evolution that it begins to.

and yes i was here before, then life happened, now i am heere again.  

[OneWithDunamis]

Adam and Eve weren't created as babies, vegetation wasn't created as seeds, the earth can be created with age as well.  

[Crimson Raccoon]

I just want to share something I learned recently, about what's called the "day-age" interpretation, which is that each "day" in the description of Creation in Genesis doesn't mean a 24-hour period, but really is just representational of a longer period, perhaps thousands or millions of years.

I always assumed that this interpretation was developed as a response to scientific evidence that the earth was old. But actually I learned recently, that some commentators way back in history, even in the 400's AD, said that the days weren't necessarily literal. Not because of scientific evidence that contradicted a literal interpretation, but because of evidence within the Bible itself. Augustine is the most prominent church father who had this interpretation, and he is widely respected by Christians of every denomination. I just thought that was an interesting and useful insight.

The more I learn about the day-age interpretation, the more it seems acceptable to me.

OneWithDunamis

Adam and Eve weren't created as babies, vegetation wasn't created as seeds, the earth can be created with age as well.

Vegetation may indeed have been created as seeds, since Genesis says plants came by sprouting out of the earth, not just from God creating them fully formed. It says the earth brought forth vegetation, not specifically that God created the plants. So that does make it sound like they grew, and that could very well have been out of seeds. Plants don't need parents to survive, but most animals do. Creating the egg before the chicken would result in the chick's death, but creating the seed before the plant would make no difference at all. Anyway, who knows how it all worked out.

But it's true that the earth could have been made in a condition that appears older than it really is. That was OneWithDunamis's main point, and it holds true as a possibility.  

[promised_child]

Crimson Raccoon

I just want to share something I learned recently, about what's called the "day-age" interpretation, which is that each "day" in the description of Creation in Genesis doesn't mean a 24-hour period, but really is just representational of a longer period, perhaps thousands or millions of years.

I always assumed that this interpretation was developed as a response to scientific evidence that the earth was old. But actually I learned recently, that some commentators way back in history, even in the 400's AD, said that the days weren't necessarily literal. Not because of scientific evidence that contradicted a literal interpretation, but because of evidence within the Bible itself. Augustine is the most prominent church father who had this interpretation, and he is widely respected by Christians of every denomination. I just thought that was an interesting and useful insight.

The more I learn about the day-age interpretation, the more it seems acceptable to me.

OneWithDunamis

Adam and Eve weren't created as babies, vegetation wasn't created as seeds, the earth can be created with age as well.

Vegetation may indeed have been created as seeds, since Genesis says plants came by sprouting out of the earth, not just from God creating them fully formed. It says the earth brought forth vegetation, not specifically that God created the plants. So that does make it sound like they grew, and that could very well have been out of seeds. Plants don't need parents to survive, but most animals do. Creating the egg before the chicken would result in the chick's death, but creating the seed before the plant would make no difference at all. Anyway, who knows how it all worked out.

But it's true that the earth could have been made in a condition that appears older than it really is. That was OneWithDunamis's main point, and it holds true as a possibility.

before the "dark ages" was the "age of enlightenment" we actually regressed technologically and in knowledge durring the Dark Ages. we as a planet should be much further advanced. but since Rome wanted complete control, and knowledge is power, science and math became heretic. so it isnt really surprising that in 400 AD there were advanced theories about the planet and life therefore on it. this is not a slight on the Roman Catholic church, it is merely fact that, even in the Vatican, corrupt politicians are detrimental to society as a whole. columbus was not the first to say that the earth was round. Plato said it centuries before, and was also the one to say that the earth revolved around the sun, not the other way around. maybe we should look backwards first then see what we can come up with scientificly....

just sayin  

[Crimson Raccoon]

promised_child

before the "dark ages" was the "age of enlightenment" we actually regressed technologically and in knowledge durring the Dark Ages. we as a planet should be much further advanced. but since Rome wanted complete control, and knowledge is power, science and math became heretic. so it isnt really surprising that in 400 AD there were advanced theories about the planet and life therefore on it. this is not a slight on the Roman Catholic church, it is merely fact that, even in the Vatican, corrupt politicians are detrimental to society as a whole. columbus was not the first to say that the earth was round. Plato said it centuries before, and was also the one to say that the earth revolved around the sun, not the other way around. maybe we should look backwards first then see what we can come up with scientificly....

just sayin

Well, the period called the Age of Enlightenment was actually after the dark ages, it was around the 1700's. It's true that our technology would be a lot more advanced today if we had continued developing steadily since Rome. I'm not sure the reason we fell into the dark ages was because of Rome being too controlling, actually Rome was the most technologically advanced society in the world, and was only matched in recent centuries. I think it was probably more the collapse of the Roman Empire that contributed to the dark ages, because so many societies were then without government and had to start from scratch. There was also plague and climate issues that persisted for centuries, altogether making it a difficult time to live and develop society.

The Roman Catholic church did have serious corruptions throughout the period of the Middle Ages, and actually the Protestant Reformation, along with capitalism, is credited quite a bit with bringing Western society out of the "dark" intellectual age. The climate and plague issues had also improved before these changes happened. But I'm not sure if the Roman Catholic church can take too much blame for the dark ages, either, since without it intellectualism would probably have died out completely. And we would have lost all the ancient writings and histories; they were the ones that preserved them.


I'm glad you brought up Columbus, because that is a common historical myth. Most people today believe that Columbus thought the world was round when everyone else believed it was flat. This is actually false, though it is still commonly taught in grade-schools today. In Columbus's day, everyone knew the world was round. People hadn't thought it was flat since the time of the ancient Greeks.

The debate that Columbus got into when he tried to get support for his travels, was over the size of the earth, not whether it was round. He thought he could sail around the world, but he had trouble convincing anyone that it was possible, because everyone thought the world was too large to make that journey. In fact, they were right, and Columbus was wrong. The world was much larger than Columbus thought, but he got lucky because there was an extra two continents in the middle. Remember that when he landed in the Americas, he thought he was in India (which is why he called the natives Indians), and he was way off from reality.

But there was no debate over the earth being round or flat; everyone knew it was round. So I'm glad you brought it up, promised_child, because probably most people in this forum didn't know this was only a myth. It's no one's fault, we've just been taught wrong.

The origin of this myth can mostly be traced to a single man, John William Draper, who wrote a popular book called A History of the Conflict between Religion and Science. The book is complete anti-Church propaganda, made to convince people that the church was responsible for almost every problem the human race has faced since the beginning of the Middle Ages. He wrote that the Roman Catholic church was opposed to the idea of a round earth, and that it tried to keep everyone in ignorance. He made it seem like Science was considered heretical.

These, and the other accusations he wrote, are completely false and no historian today supports anything he wrote. However, a lot of his stories remain commonly believed today because it makes good Hollywood material. Columbus is always portrayed in movies and television as fighting for what he believed in against the ignorant people in power over him. So people, including grade school teachers, believe what they see on TV and pass it on to their students.  

[promised_child]

Crimson Raccoon

promised_child

before the "dark ages" was the "age of enlightenment" we actually regressed technologically and in knowledge during the Dark Ages. we as a planet should be much further advanced. but since Rome wanted complete control, and knowledge is power, science and math became heretic. so it isn't really surprising that in 400 AD there were advanced theories about the planet and life therefore on it. this is not a slight on the Roman Catholic church, it is merely fact that, even in the Vatican, corrupt politicians are detrimental to society as a whole. Columbus was not the first to say that the earth was round. Plato said it centuries before, and was also the one to say that the earth revolved around the sun, not the other way around. maybe we should look backwards first then see what we can come up with scientifically....

just sayin

Well, the period called the Age of Enlightenment was actually after the dark ages, it was around the 1700's. It's true that our technology would be a lot more advanced today if we had continued developing steadily since Rome. I'm not sure the reason we fell into the dark ages was because of Rome being too controlling, actually Rome was the most technologically advanced society in the world, and was only matched in recent centuries. I think it was probably more the collapse of the Roman Empire that contributed to the dark ages, because so many societies were then without government and had to start from scratch. There was also plague and climate issues that persisted for centuries, altogether making it a difficult time to live and develop society.

The Roman Catholic church did have serious corruptions throughout the period of the Middle Ages, and actually the Protestant Reformation, along with capitalism, is credited quite a bit with bringing Western society out of the "dark" intellectual age. The climate and plague issues had also improved before these changes happened. But I'm not sure if the Roman Catholic church can take too much blame for the dark ages, either, since without it intellectualism would probably have died out completely. And we would have lost all the ancient writings and histories; they were the ones that preserved them.


I'm glad you brought up Columbus, because that is a common historical myth. Most people today believe that Columbus thought the world was round when everyone else believed it was flat. This is actually false, though it is still commonly taught in grade-schools today. In Columbus's day, everyone knew the world was round. People hadn't thought it was flat since the time of the ancient Greeks.

The debate that Columbus got into when he tried to get support for his travels, was over the size of the earth, not whether it was round. He thought he could sail around the world, but he had trouble convincing anyone that it was possible, because everyone thought the world was too large to make that journey. In fact, they were right, and Columbus was wrong. The world was much larger than Columbus thought, but he got lucky because there was an extra two continents in the middle. Remember that when he landed in the Americas, he thought he was in India (which is why he called the natives Indians), and he was way off from reality.

But there was no debate over the earth being round or flat; everyone knew it was round. So I'm glad you brought it up, promised_child, because probably most people in this forum didn't know this was only a myth. It's no one's fault, we've just been taught wrong.

The origin of this myth can mostly be traced to a single man, John Draper, who wrote a popular book called A History of the Conflict between Religion and Science. The book is complete anti-Church propaganda, made to convince people that the church was responsible for almost every problem the human race has faced since the beginning of the Middle Ages. He wrote that the Roman Catholic church was opposed to the idea of a round earth, and that it tried to keep everyone in ignorance. He made it seem like Science was considered heretical.

These, and the other accusations he wrote, are completely false and no historian today supports anything he wrote. However, a lot of his stories remain commonly believed today because it makes good Hollywood material. Columbus is always portrayed in movies and television as fighting for what he believed in against the ignorant people in power over him. So people, including grade school teachers, believe what they see on TV and pass it on to their students.

i meant the classical age.... to many ages..... when i said Rome, i meant the Vatican. i wasn't taught from that book, and my WH class actually dealt very little with the cause of the Dark Ages, but it is recorded historical fact that people who studied the sciences were often dubbed witches or heretics by the clergy. even after the Dark Ages, the churches still view science with mistrust, but the Bible is full of science. you cant have one without the other, whether or not we acknowledge it on either side. that was my point...