A case for creationism.

[geckopelli]

Yet again I'll try- who's got one?

What is the "theory"? What evidence is there?

No creationist has ever presented a case for thier view in this forum. Only anti-science rhetoric.

Anybody?

[matthew]

Yet again I'll try- who's got one?

What is the "theory"? What evidence is there?

No creationist has ever presented a case for thier view in this forum. Only anti-science rhetoric.

Anybody?
Once you start shaking at those beliefs it all comes tumbling down.


Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

http://www.creationism.org/

The thing is creationism is a load of rubbish...this is so blindingly obvious ...it makes me weep when people think that 'god' created the universe

[Mr MiGu]

hey, were here, something must have created us

[matthew]

hey, were here, something must have created us
we are carbon based life form that hit the jackpot in the evolution stakes along with the other billion or so carbon based life forms on this planet.

[Mr MiGu]

ahhhh, so it was carbon who created us

but then, what created carbon?

[matthew]

ahhhh, so it was carbon who created us

but then, what created carbon?If i knew what created carbon , i would rule this planet :) . i know that 'god' did not do it though. because the universe is vast and we are too small for god to have a hand in it.. why would god bother .

If you believe in god you just have to deal with outdated information i guess..

[thumontico]

You cannot compare the universe to anything. It simply IS. There is no intrinsic meaning or purpose.

[Mr MiGu]

it was once theorized that the earth, and all life on it, was just one giant experiment, trying to find the answer to a theory. could this not also apply to the universe?

[geckopelli]

WAIT!

Let's go with this:

"hey, were here, something must have created us"

Creationis believe this "something" to be an intelligent, willfull, (although undescribed) being or creature loosley designated "God".

Or is that not so?

And if the "something" is not god, than what is it? Is it even a nessacry concept?

I still await a creationist to expound on the matter.

[BlackGuardXIII]

I just have trouble with the idea that you mix saltwater, rock, lightning, etc. and then somehow it ends up being DNA. There is a whole lot of steps we don't have the faintest clue about.

[J_Lazarus]

Well, the Intelligent Design movement has certainly posed certain things as "Evidences" of Creation - I'm surprised you're not familiar with them since you seem familiar with the evolution-creationism controversy.

Usual evidences:

(1) The Cambrian Explosion (via Wells and Meyer)

(2) Irreducibly Complex Systems (via Behe)

(3) Fine-Tuning Estimations

(4) Arguments in modern cosmology (e.g. Kalam, via Craig)

(5) Dissimilarities of embryos in their earliest stages (which is specifically against evolution, not *really* positive evidence for a Creator, but they try to use it as effectively as they can nonetheless) - (via Wells)

(6) The incapability of life forming from non-life (i.e. problems with the Stanley Miller experiment), sans an intelligent guide to promote the development of the building blocks of life.

(7) The improbability of human rationality assuming naturalistic models of origin (via Plantinga)

(8) Human consciousness (via Moreland)

- Laz

[matthew]

WAIT!

Let's go with this:

"hey, were here, something must have created us"

Creationis believe this "something" to be an intelligent, willfull, (although undescribed) being or creature loosley designated "God".

Or is that not so?

And if the "something" is not god, than what is it? Is it even a nessacry concept?

I still await a creationist to expound on the matter.I don't believe it is nessacry at all. I can believe a man not unlike many men (and women) that have come into being for one reason or another, change the course of history . This is all Jesus is, a historical figure. God knows all that is was and will be, so would not in effect need to send anyone down , because he knew some one somwere would step up and say i am the son of god (and be believed)..Then why would he allow a figure to reveal itself if 'he' knew the trouble this would cause , a punishment a test ?? WHY . Well i think its the latest in a long line of bulls*** designed to scare and confuse the masses to be part of the 'chosen few'...thus keeping the social hierarchy going.



I just have trouble with the idea that you mix saltwater, rock, lightning, etc. and then somehow it ends up being DNA. There is a whole lot of steps we don't have the faintest clue about.
I have read we eminated from hot poisonous hot water vents (or something) Carbon is the most stable but reactive element on the periodic table ?

I can believe this :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/282201.stm

"... the latest findings add weight to the view that the cloud of gas and dust that formed the solar system could well have contained amino-acid molecules already primed for the eventual emergence of life. That adds weight to the theory that life exists elsewhere."
-- Christian Science Monitor, 9/18/97


"We suggest that life emerged on Earth about 4.2 billion years ago from a redox and pH front focused at the interface between reduced, alkaline, off-ridge, hot submarine spring waters and the somewhat acid and mildly oxidised Hadean ocean."
-- University of Glasgow, Scotland

"Although Charles Darwin speculated that life originated in a warm, nourishing broth, new evidence suggests that the cradle of life could have been ... a sulfurous swirl of superheated water and oozing lava."


http://www.sentex.net/%7Etcc/ftrad.html


I can 'believe' the bible can use 'god' as metaphor for the creation of the universe , so that the truly awe inspiring vastness and the subsequent futile nature of us animals on this planet that needs answers too the 'meaning of life' can make us 'feast' and 'provide'...

But i don't realy need the pompousity of the belief that :


God said, "Let there be light", and there was.
"Let there be earth", and there was.
[Ps. Longinus (http://www.sentex.net/%7Etcc/flongin.html) , quoting "the lawgiver of the Jews".]





Then 'god' sent 'jesus' down too earth blah blah blah ....

[geckopelli]

J Lazarus,

Those are arguments agasint science.

They do not offer any eveidence of a supreme being. Something being inexplicable to an ignorant(at the time) humanity hardly requires the assumption of a creature for wich no actual evidence exist.

The claim that science can not explain something does not prove religion. It merely indicates that proper perspective on known facts has not been achieved-yet.

[BlackGuardXIII]

J Lazarus,

Those are arguments agasint science.

They do not offer any eveidence of a supreme being. Something being inexplicable to an ignorant(at the time) humanity hardly requires the assumption of a creature for wich no actual evidence exist.

The claim that science can not explain something does not prove religion. It merely indicates that proper perspective on known facts has not been achieved-yet.
I agree up to the last line. It is my belief that once the facts are known, time and material existence will prove to be illusory. This is my conclusion based on time and matter defying events in my life that beg for explanation, to me.

[geckopelli]

To get off topic, It appears to me that those begged-for-explanations that we all wish we had, are to be found in the quantum and statistical nature of existence.

What you call illusionary is real on it's proper quantum level- the level of inteligent self counciousness.

However, on the sub-atomic level, it's non-existent .

When a single quantum is measured in terms of society, your life is insignificant.

Against the backdrop of all life, it's irrelevant.

Perhaps there are other level of which we are not and cannot be aware?

In any case, I often find solace in contemplating the universe and my place in it as other than my common day to day existence.

[BlackGuardXIII]

To get off topic, It appears to me that those begged-for-explanations that we all wish we had, are to be found in the quantum and statistical nature of existence.

What you call illusionary is real on it's proper quantum level- the level of inteligent self counciousness.

However, on the sub-atomic level, it's non-existent .

When a single quantum is measured in terms of society, your life is insignificant.

Against the backdrop of all life, it's irrelevant.

Perhaps there are other level of which we are not and cannot be aware?

In any case, I often find solace in contemplating the universe and my place in it as other than my common day to day existence.
could be....like Hawking said "God not only plays dice with the universe, sometimes he throws them where you can't see them."

The dimensions, levels, whatever, are there, I just cannot figure what the purpose is for the influence on ours that I have seen so many times.

[geckopelli]

Other than perpetuating life, the only "purpose" I feel is to seek to understand.

Anything that is real, exist. And anything that exist can be understood.

I seek that which I find perplexing, and overpower it with comprehension.

[BlackGuardXIII]

Other than perpetuating life, the only "purpose" I feel is to seek to understand.

Anything that is real, exist. And anything that exist can be understood.

I seek that which I find perplexing, and overpower it with comprehension.
I know what you mean, and on that level I see a purpose of serving the earth, nature, people. I have a different question here though.
Okay, lets say I had around half a dozen precognitive dreams, my fiance astral travelled across two states, my friends wife sent him a sign from beyond the grave, and I am bombarded with freaky coincidences daily.

If that were the case, what would you make of it?

[geckopelli]

I would seek knowledge of such possible phenomena; but I would do so with a firm basis in physics first and formost. You must bow to reality; if such things are real, than, by the definition of reality, they leave an observable wake in there passing, so to speak.
Nearly all of the literature available in such fields lacks such a perspective, and is thus "fringe element" stuff. Filled with or reliant on, untestable assumption(s).

Although the current state of understanding does not recognize the existence of these reported phenomena, it doesn't specifically rule it out, eithier.

The trick is to find a loop-hole. Your can rule out astral projection as a physical phenomenon IF it is dependent on violating the speed of light limit. (Unless, of course, you can sucessfully modify Einstien).
It's not radiowave transmissions from the brain, because they cannot be detected.
So perhaps a single quantum of X, that doesn't travel faster than light and doesn't give off or cause secondary radiowaves, accounts for it.
Or maybe it DOES leave a secondsry radio signature. Or maybe a tertiary one.
In other words, for X to exist and violate no "laws" of physics, what must be it's properties?
You get the idea.

And thus I seek any possible god.

[J_Lazarus]

J Lazarus,

Those are arguments agasint science.

They do not offer any eveidence of a supreme being. Something being inexplicable to an ignorant(at the time) humanity hardly requires the assumption of a creature for wich no actual evidence exist.

The claim that science can not explain something does not prove religion. It merely indicates that proper perspective on known facts has not been achieved-yet. Well, I'm no Creationist, but I'd disagree that (1)-(4), (7), and (8) are arguments against science and do not imply Intelligent Design. Simply, I would say these "evidences" are wrong.

Firstly, people like Wells, Behe, Meyer, and Craig use positive scientific "evidences" to establish their claims. So they are *using* science as support, not going against it. By saying that these "proofs" are against science, you're already assuming naturalistic models are scientifically accurate and established. This, however, is precisely the point they are having problems with - and they're attempting to use established science to point in another direction - i.e., Design.

If dualism is correct, for instance, this suggests a spiritual realm that is involved in the natural world. If Craig's argumentation from modern cosmological models is correct, this necessitates a personal Cause to the universe. The sudden appearance of complex organisms in (1), considering (2) and (6), certainly implies an Intelligent Designer.

The problem is not that these are anti-science in nature or that they do not logically imply their conclusions, but that these proofs ignore many things. For instance, (6) ignores that even IF early atmospheric conditions were not supportive of life, this in no way damages the work and conclusions of the Miller-Urey experiment. The conditions encouraging of the development of amino acids, etc. is considered to have been very much present underwater, where the atmospheric conditions would have been entirely irrelevant for the emergence of life. (etc. etc.)

- Laz

[geckopelli]

The lack of scientific understanding is misconstrued by the faithful at every encounter.

"indications of a supreme being" is a totally subjective statement.

No super-intelligence is required to form the observable universe.

Occam's Razor.

[geckopelli]

An assumption that cannot be tested remains nothing but wild speculation.

[roly]

[QUOTE=matthew . i know that 'god' did not do it though.
[/QUOTE]
HAHAHAHHAAHAHHA

[Sera Michele]

When we talk about "Creationism" we are talking spefically about the christian theory of creation, correct? There must be more religious views of how we got here than just that one. Are any of these other views still entertained as viable theories?

I think that the only reason creationism has stuck around so far is because of the multitude of people that participate in religions that support the theory. (If you can call it a theory...)

[geckopelli]

Creationism is not a theory, because it cannot be investigated. It's a religious belief.

As far as I've been able to ascertain, there exist no creation myth in any religion that takes billions of years and the existence of dinosaurs into account.
So none of them can be viable.

Creationism is still around because it is in the interest of organized religion (which is Big Buisiness) to maintain ignorance and obedience among it's victims. The history of the church is largely the history of trying to maintain the status quo.

[Sera Michele]

Sorry about that. My 10 years in a baptist school has gotten me into the habit of calling creationism a theory. My brain is aware of the difference, my vocabulary just doesn't reflect it...

But what I was trying to point out is that if the world is going to consider creationism as a viable possibility of our coming into existance than we also need to equally include any other religious theories as possibilities. And once you do that the whole thing just gets silly....

[matthew]

. i know that 'god' did not do it though.
HAHAHAHHAAHAHHA
I make myself laugh sometimes hahahahahaha . not sure what you found funny but if it made you laugh
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/images/icons/newicons/icon14.gif
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/images/icons/newicons/icon14.gif


Creationism is still around because it is in the interest of organized religion (which is Big Buisiness) to maintain ignorance and obedience among it's victims. The history of the church is largely the history of trying to maintain the status quo.
aint that the truth .

Another theory (http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/W/what_we_still_dont_know/arewealone.html)

[geckopelli]

If I was going to pitch a case for creationism, I'd start at the begining with the big-bang, not 15 billion years into the game when the Earth came along.

[POPthree13]

Sure Gecko, but you are assuming a story of the beginning of the earth/universe must be accurate to be true. The Big Bang itself is a theory and those two word do little to 'accurately' describe the beginnings of the universe. Prerhaps 'let there be light' meant the same thing to Jewsih astrologers as 'Big Bang' does to you.


In any account accuracy - in the most pure sense of the word - is completely impossible. So ANY creationist/evolutionary story we recount will be only a best-guess. Perhaps 'let the waters bring forth life' isn't any less true than 'fish grew legs'. Both are equally inaccurate representations of what happened, but both are (more or less) true.

My only complaint with a creationsists perspective is when it can not accomodate evolution. Evolution happened / is happening, period. What got it started, or why it continues will not be 'accurately' explained until we transcend our physical reality - or not.

[thumontico]

The main dispute has never been the samantics of the association between evolutionary theory and possible connections of relevance with the Bible. In any case creationists are claiming a God created us.

Basically, if one would accept Biblical relevance to evolutionism, you have one theory that gets right to the heart of the matter and another one that masks actuality in metaphoric language [to an illogical end].

I agree with Gecko, as I have said the same thing, if the religious want to maintain any sort of dominance in the upcoming generations they will have to deal with evolution as a given. To overcome this they will have to start saying that the 'Big Bang' was by process of God. Creationism was all well and good [and necessarily a possibility, through conformist thought] until Darwin came along. But you must adapt! I urge you to create another inconcievable creationist theory (it is your only means of long-term survival, mind you). God created the Big Bang, of course, how else could it have happened? Word on the street is that there isn't enough matter in the universe for it to be so massive that it converges on itself therefore presupposing that that wasn't the cause of singularity. In any case, lack of knowledge does not imply a necessity for God.

[BlackGuardXIII]

it dont matter, just be good.


God created the whole thing, following a specific set of formulae and laws.
we are all correct.