Creation

[Oleg Bach]

Ah yes, if you simplify physics beyond all reason, you can forcefit it into some ancient myth.

Reality, of course, is much more complex.

I would say that the ancients were more "complex" than you give them credit for. What makes you believe that as time passed man kind became more informed in all areas? Time travels back and forth..there is no great progress when you move it in one direction - say forward..."force fit" is a powerful a forceful use of language..mere word can not defeat real logic. Physics is simple...Genesis could have said "let there be marshmellows - but it did not - it used the word light. There are terms like "void" which could mean dark matter..or "moved over the deep" - and did you ever wonder about the endless randomness of creation- or life on earth - with out computer generation - every human that ever lived gazed at a could that was not the same as the last? It's pretty remarkable ..but then again why would you respect a miracle if it was staring you in the face - best to ignore it.

[ToadBrother]

I would say that the ancients were more "complex" than you give them credit for. What makes you believe that as time passed man kind became more informed in all areas? Time travels back and forth..there is no great progress when you move it in one direction - say forward..."force fit" is a powerful a forceful use of language..mere word can not defeat real logic. Physics is simple...Genesis could have said "let there be marshmellows - but it did not - it used the word light. There are terms like "void" which could mean dark matter..or "moved over the deep" - and did you ever wonder about the endless randomness of creation- or life on earth - with out computer generation - every human that ever lived gazed at a could that was not the same as the last? It's pretty remarkable ..but then again why would you respect a miracle if it was staring you in the face - best to ignore it.

I'm not saying the ancients didn't have their knowledge, I'm saying that the idea that you can force fit modern notions of physics, that for the most part, didn't even exist a few centuries ago, is a ludicrous activity.

[Oleg Bach]

I'm not saying the ancients didn't have their knowledge, I'm saying that the idea that you can force fit modern notions of physics, that for the most part, didn't even exist a few centuries ago, is a ludicrous activity.

Things vacilate in time. Maybe a few centuries ago there were some dark spots in human intelligence. It does not mean that ten centuries ago they were not enlightened. The idea I was trying to promote was the concept that things get lost in time. Time is a pretty dark and vast place - an idea that existed ten thousand years ago could have been akin to modern physics.

[ToadBrother]

Things vacilate in time. Maybe a few centuries ago there were some dark spots in human intelligence. It does not mean that ten centuries ago they were not enlightened. The idea I was trying to promote was the concept that things get lost in time. Time is a pretty dark and vast place - an idea that existed ten thousand years ago could have been akin to modern physics.

I can assure you that Bronze Age herders did not know about the earliest moments after the Big Bang. These people thought the world was flat and dish-shaped with the stars, moon, sun and planet set into a sphere over the top of it, having ripped off their cosmography from the Sumerians.

Edited April 5, 2011 by ToadBrother

[Oleg Bach]

I can assure you that Bronze Age herders did not know about the earliest moments after the Big Bang. These people thought the world was flat and dish-shaped with the stars, moon, sun and planet set into a sphere over the top of it, having ripped off their cosmography from the Sumerians.

There is a description in scripture of the creation of a "fermament" - this is a dome like coverning - I would say a gaseous atmosphere that was breathable. _ Okay - I see your poing...but some things turn to dust as if they never existed..Like the missing link between humans and apes..where is this fossil? It is a possiblity that things that existed and ideas that existed were totally degraded and turned back into dust by time.

Things desolve...empires rise and fall - then there are blips of great human thought....like DeVince`..............coming up with modern concepts 500 years prior to their inception...It's possible that we are making a repeat tour of human exsistance..If evolution is true - It could happen repeatedly - grade and degrade. The Sumerians that you mentioned were pretty bright - they figured out how to store electical energy in a contained vessel (battery) ........oh well - it really does not matter much.

[Oleg Bach]

Creation and evolution are both exceptable - both are intelligent design...I once picked a common burr from the cuff of my pants and thought - What a clever and intelligent seed..it managed to travel all the way from the meadows to my back yard - using me for transport...nature is intelligent. The cosmos is also intelligent - and intelligence is the proof of the existance of an all mighty intelligent force.

[bloodyminded]

Of course it is the basics! Go back to your science books - or google. I think there's even one that's titled: The Science of Space, Time and Matter.

Anyway, you're starting to hyperventilate.....spiralling down to pure ranting.

So typical of the New Atheism flock. So very Dawkins' flock-esque.

What Dawkins didn't tell you guys, it's hard to maneuver in a little, dark box.

If you really wanna know....you gotta be prepared to knock down walls....think and look outside that box.

If you wanna see some light, at least open a window.

You're profoundly overstating the importance of Dawkins. Hell, I was an atheist before I'd ever heard the name, and he's had zero influence on what I think about the matter.

[ToadBrother]

You're profoundly overstating the importance of Dawkins. Hell, I was an atheist before I'd ever heard the name, and he's had zero influence on what I think about the matter.

It seems that Creationists seem to fixate on individuals. For years they attacked Darwin, but I suppose after a century and a half or so, it doesn't seem quite so practical. Dawkins, because he's controversial and tweaks noses, seems, in a Creationist's mind, like a good Pope of Atheism. I became an atheist somewhere around 17 or 18, and didn't read The Selfish Gene until I was 19 or 20, and that was the first Dawkins' book I read.

I wonder why the Creationists never attack guys like Ernst Mayr or Theodore Dobzhansky, who are probably the major titans of the Modern Synthesis and still probably, post-Darwin, the most profoundly influential evolutionary theorists. Dobzhansky is very interesting because he was a devout Orthodox Christian. I suspect, for the most part, it's because Creationists know so very little about biology and about the major figures in biology.

[Oleg Bach]

It seems that Creationists seem to fixate on individuals. For years they attacked Darwin, but I suppose after a century and a half or so, it doesn't seem quite so practical. Dawkins, because he's controversial and tweaks noses, seems, in a Creationist's mind, like a good Pope of Atheism. I became an atheist somewhere around 17 or 18, and didn't read The Selfish Gene until I was 19 or 20, and that was the first Dawkins' book I read.

I wonder why the Creationists never attack guys like Ernst Mayr or Theodore Dobzhansky, who are probably the major titans of the Modern Synthesis and still probably, post-Darwin, the most profoundly influential evolutionary theorists. Dobzhansky is very interesting because he was a devout Orthodox Christian. I suspect, for the most part, it's because Creationists know so very little about biology and about the major figures in biology.

Don't see why anyone with any sense would attack C. Darwin. All he did was give a rational and scientific explaination to creation the best he could...The guy was a lot like Albert Einstein...neither of these inquisitive men were God haters nor where they even attempting to discredit what was clearly intelligent design.

For some reason there it seems popular these days to HATE the idea of any sort of father figure including the concept of an all mighty intelligent force that would be the father of us all...This intensity in the quest to de-throne the patriachal idea of a great creator or protector is troublesome. As for Orthodoxy in Christianity...I come from a long line of Orthodox Christians...and they were not big on the smoke and mirrors thing about virgin birth - or other silly stuff like Jesus not having natural brothers and sisters...In fact - our priests could take wives - Just as Christ could and problably did.

Religion has a lot of myth in it to make it more attractive in order to create a more powerful state like religion...God hating probably comes from that. No one wants to be controled and the God factor is such that we are granted free will by God - because he is not interested in creating being that have to be controlled...mankind has a facination with the control of others - God does not.

[WIP]

I think this thread should be retitled:

CREATION

The topic that creationists just won't let go of.

[ToadBrother]

I think this thread should be retitled:

CREATION

The topic that creationists just won't let go of.

They're whole worldview centres on literal interpretation of scripture. They can't help it, because for them, their whole religious faith is tied directly to the Bible being literally true. To be forced to contemplate the idea that Genesis may not in fact be a literally true sequence of events is to basically deny their religious beliefs entire.

St. Augustine warned against this, though the Catholic Church hasn't always listened (hence the Galileo debacle).

[dre]

They're whole worldview centres on literal interpretation of scripture. They can't help it, because for them, their whole religious faith is tied directly to the Bible being literally true. To be forced to contemplate the idea that Genesis may not in fact be a literally true sequence of events is to basically deny their religious beliefs entire.

St. Augustine warned against this, though the Catholic Church hasn't always listened (hence the Galileo debacle).

I can see why... as people evolve religion is looked to for different things, and expect it to answer different questions. In early religions the "gods" were things like planets, stars, and the sun, because we didnt know what those things were... those religions died out once we started to understand those things, and religions evolved to answer different questions. Now the biggest questions religion attempts to answer are around creation, and purpose. How were we created, and why. The abrahamites need to fight tooth and nail for this turf because once science has a solid claim on it, they dont have much to offer anymore.

If a few thousand years abrahamic religions will be long gone, and we will talk about them the same way we talk about ancient pagan religions now. We will be astounded that any humans could have ever believed it.

Creation is the churches "last stand", and they will fight science for this turf until the bitter end.

[ToadBrother]

Creation is the churches "last stand", and they will fight science for this turf until the bitter end.

I don't know if I buy this or not. First of all, Sola Scriptura is largely limited to a number of Protestant churches. The Catholic Church, and none of the major Protestant churches, advocate it in any way, shape or form. By and large, these churches tend to try to find ways to accept scientific findings (there are exceptions, of course, but it's a useful general statement).

Look at this way. The original Bronze Age Semitic peoples of Canaan who began creating what would become the Bible believed in a flat, dish-shaped earth surrounded by a dome or firmanent in which the heavenly bodies were fixed to. A pretty typical belief at the time, largely adopted from the Sumerians via the Akkadian and Hittite cultures.

Fast forward seven or eight hundred years to Roman Judea. The descendants of these tribes, the Greco-Roman era Jews, were religiously related to their ancestors, but had pretty much fully adopted Aristotlean thought and Greek learning (like everyone else in the Mediterranean world). Coupled with this adoption of Greek learning was that the world was spherical, not flat. The change brought with it a change in how the first chapter of Genesis was interpreted. What's more, the whole Aristotlean worldview fundamentally altered the theological and philosophical underpinnings of the old religion. 1st century Judaism in many ways was a considerably different faith than the religion of the Israelites, and Christianity was born out of that synthesis of Greek thought and Jewish faith. Along with that was the idea that you couldn't just read the Bible as a literal story, that the ancient Israelites were an ancient people. This created, particularly in the Christian religion, the idea of revealed faith, which neatly sidestepped any glaring inconsistencies between observed reality and Scripture.

Fast forward again about 1900 or 2000 years and you find a relatively young strain of Christianity, pretty much Protestant, originally American, that had decided to push the clock back the better part of 3000 years to form of interpretation that invoked Sola Scriptura unapologetically, though with a good deal of inconsistency. From this group sprung the Creationists. While the larger churches, to one degree or another, following in the Augustine tradition, decided against any contest with Darwinian theory (the Catholic Church having severely learned its lesson over Galileo), this group made evolution its enemy, a Satanic and false idea that must be attacked.

I would never be so bold as to say the Abrahamic religions will die. But I do think the more anti-intellectual strains in all three major Abrahamic faiths, for a number of reasons will fade, and along with them, Creationism in its varied forms.

[Bonam]

I would never be so bold as to say the Abrahamic religions will die.

Why not? There are thousands if not millions of religions in human history, and the vast majority of them are dead and forgotten. History suggests that religions die as surely as they are created, just like all human social constructs (nations, institutions, etc).

[ToadBrother]

Why not? There are thousands if not millions of religions in human history, and the vast majority of them are dead and forgotten. History suggests that religions die as surely as they are created, just like all human social constructs (nations, institutions, etc).

Yes, religions die, but some religions have rather long lives. Zoroastrianism, with its roots in the presumed Indo-Aryan religion, is ancient. The Egyptian religion, dead now, was practised for thousands of years. I'm not saying the Abrahamic religions will last forever, although it honestly wouldn't surprise me if Judaism outlasts the others. I just don't think it's a particularly useful claim to make. Yes, religions die, but on the whole, Christianity and Islam are still growing, so any reports of their demise are greatly exaggerated.

[Oleg Bach]

Yes, religions die, but some religions have rather long lives. Zoroastrianism, with its roots in the presumed Indo-Aryan religion, is ancient. The Egyptian religion, dead now, was practised for thousands of years. I'm not saying the Abrahamic religions will last forever, although it honestly wouldn't surprise me if Judaism outlasts the others. I just don't think it's a particularly useful claim to make. Yes, religions die, but on the whole, Christianity and Islam are still growing, so any reports of their demise are greatly exaggerated.

The ones based in fact last longer than the ones composed of sheer myth. Christianity lasted this long because the founder was highly intelligent and brilliant - The out come was a better world...IF not twisted or politized. This battle between God and evolution is extremely polical in nature. It's like someone bouting for control. Again it reminds me of the rebel angel or son trying to take down his dad so he can sit in the big chair ------------sorry evolutionists - and atheists - You will have to wait till dad is done - That could take a very very long time.

[ToadBrother]

The ones based in fact last longer than the ones composed of sheer myth. Christianity lasted this long because the founder was highly intelligent and brilliant -

I agree. St. Paul was highly intelligent and brilliant.

The out come was a better world...

If that was the outcome, it was a long time in the coming, and didn't seem to start to arrive until John Locke and his compatriots began fathoming the possibility of secular regimes where a man was free to believe whatever he liked.

IF not twisted or politized. This battle between God and evolution is extremely polical in nature. It's like someone bouting for control. Again it reminds me of the rebel angel or son trying to take down his dad so he can sit in the big chair ------------sorry evolutionists - and atheists - You will have to wait till dad is done - That could take a very very long time.

Evolution has already won the debate where it counts. Creationists are left trying to force their crapola on school kids.

[Oleg Bach]

I agree. St. Paul was highly intelligent and brilliant.

If that was the outcome, it was a long time in the coming, and didn't seem to start to arrive until John Locke and his compatriots began fathoming the possibility of secular regimes where a man was free to believe whatever he liked.

Evolution has already won the debate where it counts. Creationists are left trying to force their crapola on school kids.

There is only one problem I have with traditional fundementalist creationists. That is the idea that the earth is but 6000 years old. I can look at a fossil or a rock and know that it could be a million years old - it does not take a lot of education to figure that out.

Creationism has great merits but not when explained by idiots....There position is worse than dogmatic. It is ignorant...I really can't believe if there is an almighty intelligence that referes to his creations as his children - that a father would want his child to ignore reality - Christ for instance said to embrace the truth (reality) - so what are the fundings thinking? But then again...religion ruined it and generated atheists.

[ToadBrother]

There is only one problem I have with traditional fundementalist creationists. That is the idea that the earth is but 6000 years old. I can look at a fossil or a rock and know that it could be a million years old - it does not take a lot of education to figure that out.

Creationism has great merits but not when explained by idiots....There position is worse than dogmatic. It is ignorant...I really can't believe if there is an almighty intelligence that referes to his creations as his children - that a father would want his child to ignore reality - Christ for instance said to embrace the truth (reality) - so what are the fundings thinking? But then again...religion ruined it and generated atheists.

First of all, define "creationism". When I speak of Creationism, I'm referring to the variants of Special Creationism, not to a more general concept of theistic evolution.

[Oleg Bach]

First of all, define "creationism". When I speak of Creationism, I'm referring to the variants of Special Creationism, not to a more general concept of theistic evolution.

I'm not going to give you that. Special Creationism is not a term I am familiar with - but I do know what you mean when you mention theistic evolition....Is that the more intelligent approach to dealing with the God concept? Creationism is flawed in the wrong hands---If you give somethings a lot of thought you can learn more. Most if not all those that read the Bible...take thing literally - I studied the NT for a few years then put it down - What I learned was the truth was within me an not in a book...sure the book had great clues - but it was NOT the devine and upspoiled word of God...to many deceptions and mistakes not to mention the glorification of poor behaviour...for the most part the Bible is man made - but here and there - there ARE some brilliant sparks of wisdom and insight - I was not going to ignore that - out of sheer spite.

[ToadBrother]

I'm not going to give you that. Special Creationism is not a term I am familiar with - but I do know what you mean when you mention theistic evolition....Is that the more intelligent approach to dealing with the God concept? Creationism is flawed in the wrong hands---If you give somethings a lot of thought you can learn more. Most if not all those that read the Bible...take thing literally - I studied the NT for a few years then put it down - What I learned was the truth was within me an not in a book...sure the book had great clues - but it was NOT the devine and upspoiled word of God...to many deceptions and mistakes not to mention the glorification of poor behaviour...for the most part the Bible is man made - but here and there - there ARE some brilliant sparks of wisdom and insight - I was not going to ignore that - out of sheer spite.

Special Creationists believe that every species (or "kind" as they like to put it) was specially created by God, that there was no evolution, or at least nothing beyond what they call "micro-evolution" (though they never really define it very well). Special Creationists are generally divided into Young Earth Creationists (YECs), who believe in a 6,000 year old world (some calculate it as 10,000 years) and OECs (Old Earth Creationists) who believe the earth is old, but still believe that all life was specially created.

A theistic evolutionist believes that evolution happened, but that it was guided by God. These can be divided roughly into two groups; those he seem to believe that science needs to recognize the need for a designer (I'd say your average Intelligent Design advocate probably falls into this category, though many of them are in fact still YECs or OECs), and those who believe that the religious and scientific questions are separate. The great evolutionary theorist and one of the chief formulators of the Modern Synthesis, Theodore Dobzhansky, was in this camp. He was a devout Orthodox Christian, but was extremely critical of various forms of Creationism.

[dre]

Yes, religions die, but some religions have rather long lives. Zoroastrianism, with its roots in the presumed Indo-Aryan religion, is ancient. The Egyptian religion, dead now, was practised for thousands of years. I'm not saying the Abrahamic religions will last forever, although it honestly wouldn't surprise me if Judaism outlasts the others. I just don't think it's a particularly useful claim to make. Yes, religions die, but on the whole, Christianity and Islam are still growing, so any reports of their demise are greatly exaggerated.

Well... heres what I said...

In a few thousand years abrahamic religions will be long gone

Its not like I was saying this is gonna happen today or tomorrow.

[betsy]

Well... heres what I said...

Its not like I was saying this is gonna happen today or tomorrow.

That could be very true. The new generation of children are being raised by parents whose religious beliefs have been muddled by secularism. Not a few Christian parents - and preachers - have unwittingly embraced relativism and/or compromised their belief.

If left unchecked, the next generations will be gone.

I recall you posting somewhere (can't remember where) that Christianity's biggest problem is within (not the atheists)....and I agree with you on that.

We have not learned from the numerous mistakes of (Old Testament) Israel.

Parents have the Christian duty - a very important responsibility - to ensure that their children are raised knowing and understanding their religion. The foundation of Christian values should come from the parents.

Edited April 8, 2011 by betsy

[M.Dancer]

Parents have the Christian duty - a very important responsibility - to ensure that their children are raised knowing and understanding their religion. The foundation of Christian values should come from the parents.

I agree with you. My daughter and I were watching the "prince of Egypt" (the animation...although that is the book that Demille's 10 Commandments was based on)...

So we come to the plagues...ande the final plague where all the 1st born of egypt die..and she asks me why would god kill all the children who had nothing to do with Pharaoh...and I told her in language an 8 year old would understand.. I said because god is a murderer and is not nice and it is only a story.

Edited April 8, 2011 by M.Dancer

[Timothy17]

I agree. St. Paul was highly intelligent and brilliant.

Tee-hee they taught you that in Hebrew school, and like a gullible little n3rd you bought it.