F
Filius99993
Guest
It bugs me that so many people think that Creationism is not compatible with evolution… be they theists or agnostics or anything that falls in between. That’s all.
- Status
P
PantheistsRule
Guest
I believe in a philisophocal metaphorical God, not a literal one. I think that Jesus was right about a lot of stuff. We should help the poor, the suffering, the weak. It’s not a mission from God in my mind though, it’s a duty as a human being, to not let other human beings suffer.
The God we’ve created, that organized religion has created, is a singular deity. Numbers are a human concept. He is conscious. Consciousness is a human concept. The Universe simply is. So if there is a God, he must simply be. At least in my mind.
As for proving/disproving God with science, that is impossible, because he is invisible, unable to be detected by our senses. If a deity is real, than in my mind, so must the FSM, and Russel’s Teapot, and so on. There could be innumerable invisible deities. At least in my opinion. I know you are entitled to yours, and respect that.
Anyhow, this is fast turning into a discussion about God. Let’s get back to the point: Creationism. I’d really like to see a well written logical response about it, with no anger or emotions involved. Just trying to see what people are thinking. So far most everything has been interesting and there have been several intelligent posts, though many are rather off topic. I DO like the right-brained creative responses, but I’d like to see a logic/science driven left-brained one!
Until next post,
PantheistsRule
The God we’ve created, that organized religion has created, is a singular deity. Numbers are a human concept. He is conscious. Consciousness is a human concept. The Universe simply is. So if there is a God, he must simply be. At least in my mind.
As for proving/disproving God with science, that is impossible, because he is invisible, unable to be detected by our senses. If a deity is real, than in my mind, so must the FSM, and Russel’s Teapot, and so on. There could be innumerable invisible deities. At least in my opinion. I know you are entitled to yours, and respect that.
Anyhow, this is fast turning into a discussion about God. Let’s get back to the point: Creationism. I’d really like to see a well written logical response about it, with no anger or emotions involved. Just trying to see what people are thinking. So far most everything has been interesting and there have been several intelligent posts, though many are rather off topic. I DO like the right-brained creative responses, but I’d like to see a logic/science driven left-brained one!
Until next post,
PantheistsRule
P
PantheistsRule
Guest
Unfortunately, by definition, they are. GOD and evolution are not necessarily incompatible. Perhaps by creationism, you meant God. If so, I see what you mean. It actually bugs me every now and then too, hearing from really die-hard close-minded atheists. They defeat the purpose of atheism, they try to convert people. You have to respect to receive respect.
M
MrZetterlund
Guest
No offence. You are a terrible philosopher!
“The Universe simply is. So if there is a God, he must simply be. At least in my mind.”
You can accept that the Universe simply is because matter and anti-matter collided together for some unknown reason, but you can’t believe God “simply is”-?
“As for proving/disproving God with science, that is impossible, because he is invisible, unable to be detected by our senses.”
I suggest you take a look at that video I posted.
“Anyhow, this is fast turning into a discussion about God. Let’s get back to the point: Creationism. I’d really like to see a well written logical response about it, with no anger or emotions involved. Just trying to see what people are thinking. So far most everything has been interesting and there have been several intelligent posts, though many are rather off topic. I DO like the right-brained creative responses, but I’d like to see a logic/science driven left-brained one!”
I believe that WE CAN explain the origins of the universe without resorting to saying “God did it” but I believe that a belief in God is a belief in guidance. I always understood God as the man who plays the roll of fate. I believe our perfectly functioning universe exibits His creation. The odds of humanity existing are a million to one. Throwing God into the picture increases those odds.
F
Filius99993
Guest
That’s true. By Creationism, I mean the fact that God created the universe… not necessarily the beginning of Genesis. Most Catholics don’t take that sort of stuff too literally. I think that with any “beginning of the world” theory there are bound to be holes because, well, no one was around way back when. Any sort of argument will have holes in it. I have faith that God created us and the world because of His grace that always seems to pop into my life out of nowhere, when I least want it to. It’s great.
P
PantheistsRule
Guest
Terrible philosopher? Maybe Western Philosophy. I follow more of an Eastern Philosophy. I said in my post, if there is a God, he must simply be. I am a pantheist. I believe in a God that simply is. If God is universal and not human, he will not be defined by human concepts. The only thing the Universe actually is is existant. There are no measurements, those are human. No one is out there somewhere keeping all these numbers around.
I don’t believe in a deity. I do believe in some sort of “dimension” we exist upon, much like time, that influences everything. Like the Universes “flow” or life maybe, I don’t know. I don’t try to explain. As said in the Tao-te-Ching, the more you try to explain the Tao, the more he eludes you. I believe in being. Everything else is fake. Anything human is fake. All human concepts do not actually exist but in our minds. Yet, this “fakeness” I accept, as I am human, and live in a society. It is real only in our minds, perhaps like God. Like with Santa Clause when we were children, believing in a way, makes it real. It doesn’t matter if numbers are fake if they allow us to discover. It doesn’t matter if God is fake if he brings us together, and connects us.
That’s philisophically speaking. Scientifically speaking (science is our way or explaining existence in human terms) it does matter. If you ask scientifically “is there a God?” It’s a much different question than philisophically asking if there is a God. I am talking about science in this thread. If youd like, I’ll start a philisophocal conversation about God in another thread! That’d probably be more neutral, even ground, per se.
Peace!
I don’t believe in a deity. I do believe in some sort of “dimension” we exist upon, much like time, that influences everything. Like the Universes “flow” or life maybe, I don’t know. I don’t try to explain. As said in the Tao-te-Ching, the more you try to explain the Tao, the more he eludes you. I believe in being. Everything else is fake. Anything human is fake. All human concepts do not actually exist but in our minds. Yet, this “fakeness” I accept, as I am human, and live in a society. It is real only in our minds, perhaps like God. Like with Santa Clause when we were children, believing in a way, makes it real. It doesn’t matter if numbers are fake if they allow us to discover. It doesn’t matter if God is fake if he brings us together, and connects us.
That’s philisophically speaking. Scientifically speaking (science is our way or explaining existence in human terms) it does matter. If you ask scientifically “is there a God?” It’s a much different question than philisophically asking if there is a God. I am talking about science in this thread. If youd like, I’ll start a philisophocal conversation about God in another thread! That’d probably be more neutral, even ground, per se.
Peace!
D
DOShea
Guest
No one argues the validity of microevolution. That has been proven time and time again. Micro evolution is changes within a particular kind or type, similar to the Galapagos Finches and their beak shapes developing differently in response to their diet. The other evolutions are what have not been proven: macro, cosmological, etc.
Please name just one new star that science has observed to form. There aren’t any. Stellar formation from nebulae are theoretical, and have never been directly observed.
Where is the proof that there were tidal pools when life formed? Where is the proof that the conditions were “just right,” and what exactly were those conditions? Amino acids would have to form on their own and combine to form even simple proteins, then proteins would have to combine to form a DNA structure. How many independant spontaneous creative events is that? Hundreds, perhaps, all on the same day in the same place. Proteins forming DNA would not produce life without the corresponding formation of enzymes at precisely the same time and in the right way that would allow the DNA to split and replicate. Each single instance involves at least two separate spontaneous creative events… the protein AND the enzyme, and that is just to replicate ONE strand of a simple protein, say 50 pairs or so.
Science has placed amino acids in the most favorable conditions it could imagine, beginning with the Miller-Urey experiment and others since and there is only limited combination, nothing that approaches close to formation of life. And the M-U experiment removed all the oxygen (it will destroy amino acids in less than a minute) and had no UV light applied as would be in sunlight. But the killer is that what did form are pairs of the wrong type - left handed rather than right handed, which is what replicates us and every other living creature.
These facts seem to me to cast some doubt on the idea that evolution is a done deal. Parts of it might be true, but we really have no idea how life formed outside of speculation.
I’m not sure what you base that on. Have you not read Gould’s studies on the complexity of the eye in trilobytes, creatures from the Cambrian? They were incredibly complex, as were many of the structures found in creatures of that period. Both Gould and Dawkins admitted fossil evidence for transitional species just were not there, though Darwin certainly expected them to be. It’s not for lack of fossils, we have plenty of them, and nothing truly transitional. It was this lack that led Gould to formulate the idea of punctuated equilibrium, but even he was not clear on how this could lead to an increase in genetic information (that increased complexity would require). I think the best one could say is the jury is still out on those ideas.
.
This kind of comment is why it is hard to have a discussion on these ideas. Many who believe in evolution make sweeping statements about how this or that “is known” or “is established” but never give you an example to nail it down except for examples of micro evolution which is really just variation. If you choose to believe in evolution, that’s up to you, but I don’t like it when it is presented as this kind of “proven fact” when it is not that. Believing in random spontaneous generation in tidal pools with “the right” conditions is no less a faith-based belief than the “guy on the throne,” to use your term.
Like many others, I can see where evolution - IF it is established - could play a part in the creation of life forms. I believe IF it happened, it was not some chance event but part of a creative plan for life. There would be no reason for life to grow and diversify otherwise. A life form could have formed, lived, and died and that would have been the end of it. Random life, random death, move along galactic citizen, nothing else to see here.
P
PantheistsRule
Guest
Got to be brief, but what you are rather neglecting to realize is that this all took billions of years. It is observed via fossil/rock samples and carbon-dating. You can’t observe everything in your lifetime. Science requires some “faith”, but in theories backed by fact, not theories backed by lack of a scientific explanation/evidence. Again, have to be brief, otherwise I’d go a bit more in depth. I will later tonight, if this is still a topic.
Peace, Have a good day.
Peace, Have a good day.
B
Bob_Crowley
Guest
I think I’m the “third guy”. I said in my own post that the main bugbear for “Creationists” is the time factor. I’ll posit a couple of other hypotheses at some later date. I favour creationism in the sense that God created the universe by divine fiat, but I’m not at all interested in the 7 day week stuff of Genesis. That can’t be proved, and I’m simply not interested in trying to promote a literal view of Scripture when it’s not called for. But I have severe doubts about the theory of evolution and the alleged age of the universe.
On the business of God being evil or cruel, I have often pondered what seems like His unfairness. He’s certainly not soft. I don’t like HIm much sometimes, and that’s despite certain personal experiences which indicate to me both God and the devil exist.
For example, and this is a personal experience, the night my father died he turned up rather unexpectedly in my room. To cut a long story short, he started with an apology fro 25 years of fairly continuous deliberate cruelty, we argued and conversed, and at the end he gave this terrifying scream while trying to ward something off. Then he disappeared. That was 30 years ago and I still remember parts of it and in particular the scream. I was an atheist at the time. In his own words on the night in question, he specifically stated “I’ve been a real mongrel to you”, and that in regard to his cruelty, “I did it deliberately”.
So I have no doubt there is a judgment. And there’s something to fear too.
Now if God’s the author of life, He’s the author of both the winsome young of most animals, and at the same time ruthless carnivores which think nothing of killing those same young without mercy if they’re hungry. He’s the author of the beauty of a sunset, and also of a tsumani which kills 300,000 people. He may detest human activities like concentration camps. but He also allows us to carry them out, and by and large does not miraculously rescue the victims. Their gaunt skeletal photographs testify to His non-interference.
I don’t think He’s basically cruel, although the ancient Hebrews wrote about His cruel wrath, or anger. We have the capacity to be cruel, and since we’re made in God’s image, I have to assume He also has the capacity. I can’t think of anything kind about Hell for example.
Because of a lot of unfair treatment in my life, I’m not one of those who think God is a sort of doting Grandfather who guarantees long life, good health and prosperity. To be honest I think He’s unfair to a lot of people. I do a bit of work with St. Vincent de Paul, and not far from me is a family who will always struggle and two of whose children have life threatening medical conditions. One of their children has died already from the same condition, and it appears even their only remaining child may be developing the syndrome.
Then I look at the news and I find some spoilt brat of a CEO is getting millions per year, which he doesn’t deserve. While we have a standoff over Sri Lankan refugees, on the other side of the continent, luxury cruise ships carry more fortunate citizens for a week’s luscious holiday, waited on hand and foot. In regard to the CEO’s I can only think of the parable of Dives and Lazarus and wonder if most of them are going to find themselves in Dives’ position at their own judgment.
But in the meantime I wonder why God is so good to the CEO and so bad to the family I’m talking about. And the answer is “I don’t know”.
I suppose that’s where faith comes in. I think the Book of Job is mythical, if brilliant, literature. But Job’s story is played out every day all over the world. The main difference is that the most of the real Job’s never have their good fortunes restored, as he did (or as the human story teller decided to end the book on a victorious note).
They suffer to the end.
Therefore God is not soft. So what we call God’s Love must be rather uncomfortable up close. We’ve been told that if we see Him face to face in the physical sense, we’ll die. Pretty early on in my Christian walk, I remember driving towards the church to participate in our downstairs gym. I made a couple of rather “pally” comments in my mind to God. His response was not quite so matesy-watesy. I had this distinct sensation of a real sense of anger, and I felt like I was going to disintegrate. It was so disturbing I had to stop driving and pull over until it stopped.
Our spiritual personalities may be able to handle it such a confrontation, but our physical component cannot. Again, there’s an element of ruthlessness in His makeup. Like I said before I don’t like Him much sometimes. He can pretty savage, as far as I’m concerned, Christian or otherwise. He is after all the God who can watch a butterfly sip nectar from a flower, and at the very same time, observe the tortured proceedings within a black hole with equal facility and ease.
But I know He exists. And so does the devil. Which means we’re caught between a ruthlessly Holy God on the one side, and a ruthlessly evil Devil on the other.
Somehow wishful thinking isn’t going to be much help when we find out that one of them is going to say “Mine!” of all of us on a certain day.
C
CWBetts
Guest
Carbon does not attest to anything being billion of years old. Its use is restricted to organic material less than 50,000 years old. With Potassium-Argon dating, We can get rough estimates by dating layers of volcanic ash, and we can assume fossil remains have an age between the volcanic layers. If you are going to use the radiometric dating argument, at least be sure that you are mentioning the right method, as to not make yourself appear foolish.
S
spoiltvictorian
Guest
Once again, anti-intellectualism breaks itself on the solid rock of Christ’s Church. 
E
East_Anglican
Guest
God is not a man that he could lie. God is truth. The devil is a liar and God isn’t a liar. God can not create a deception.
If the Universe and the Earth are only 6000 yrears old we would not be able to see stars over 6000 light years away. God is truth and all creation declares he made it. As we can see stars billions of light years away it is obvious that God made them billions of years ago.
We have rocks that are millions of years old too, we have both the geological record and the witness of the stars to prove that The Earth is billions of years old.
We then have the fossil record with so many transitionary forms that scientists debate if things are mammal like reptiles or reptile like mammal, monkey like Lemurs or Lemur like Monkeys.
So we have Stars, Geology and Fossils. As The Bible says that by two or three wu
witnesses the case is settled I guess the young Earth debate is settled.
Theology says Who did it and science says how he did it.
If the Universe and the Earth are only 6000 yrears old we would not be able to see stars over 6000 light years away. God is truth and all creation declares he made it. As we can see stars billions of light years away it is obvious that God made them billions of years ago.
We have rocks that are millions of years old too, we have both the geological record and the witness of the stars to prove that The Earth is billions of years old.
We then have the fossil record with so many transitionary forms that scientists debate if things are mammal like reptiles or reptile like mammal, monkey like Lemurs or Lemur like Monkeys.
So we have Stars, Geology and Fossils. As The Bible says that by two or three wu
witnesses the case is settled I guess the young Earth debate is settled.
Theology says Who did it and science says how he did it.
N
NDfan
Guest
If Adam and Eve were only metaphorical characters then why are they mentioned in geneologies?? Specifically they are mentioned in the geneology of Jesus. So if they are metaphorical then where along the family tree did everyone cease being metaphorical and start actually existing?? The family tree has to fold backward or upward, whichever you prefer, to someone. Who is it or who are they??
P
PantheistsRule
Guest
Hey,
I understand why you hold the position you do on God, Bob Crowley. I respect that. As I said, I was sure you had a good reason. Regardless of why I might believe you saw what you saw, felt what you felt, etc., I understand these events in your life were very formative experiences, and respect that. While we are talking about dogma for the most part in this thread, I really for the most part have no deal with anyone as long as they give back to the world.
I disagree with your positions of God dogma wise, but DO agree with your philosophy and thought, I think.
CWBetts, I was referring to carbon dating not as the ONLY source of data but as an important one.
East Anglican, I have no issue with your response. I wish more people would think that way.
I’m getting better with using names instead of saying “guy”, huh?
What’s REALLY important in life is philosophy, I understand that, live by that, and value philosophy more than science. I know I will NEVER be a scientist, never prove anything, never directly observe science but in books. I know science is real, I mean, that’s not a very big leap of faith for me, and it shouldn’t be for most, but I live on Earth, and must above all else try to improve society, regardless of my beliefs in science or religion. I live life on EARTH, in a human society, not in space, watching the Universe from above.
So, this thread is about science and religion. Let’s keep the focus on that. Again, I COULD start a thread on philosophy if you’d like!
Peace!
PantheistsRule
I understand why you hold the position you do on God, Bob Crowley. I respect that. As I said, I was sure you had a good reason. Regardless of why I might believe you saw what you saw, felt what you felt, etc., I understand these events in your life were very formative experiences, and respect that. While we are talking about dogma for the most part in this thread, I really for the most part have no deal with anyone as long as they give back to the world.
I disagree with your positions of God dogma wise, but DO agree with your philosophy and thought, I think.
CWBetts, I was referring to carbon dating not as the ONLY source of data but as an important one.
East Anglican, I have no issue with your response. I wish more people would think that way.
I’m getting better with using names instead of saying “guy”, huh?
What’s REALLY important in life is philosophy, I understand that, live by that, and value philosophy more than science. I know I will NEVER be a scientist, never prove anything, never directly observe science but in books. I know science is real, I mean, that’s not a very big leap of faith for me, and it shouldn’t be for most, but I live on Earth, and must above all else try to improve society, regardless of my beliefs in science or religion. I live life on EARTH, in a human society, not in space, watching the Universe from above.
So, this thread is about science and religion. Let’s keep the focus on that. Again, I COULD start a thread on philosophy if you’d like!
Peace!
PantheistsRule
P
PantheistsRule
Guest
Have you ever thought that maybe the whole family tree of Jesus thing wasn’t exactly right? The Bible contains SOME historical fact, but…
And, as a general rule of thumb, you can’t prove creationism to an evolutionist by using the Bible.
Later.
C
CWBetts
Guest
But you can’t prove evolution at all in the light of irreducible complexity
S
spoiltvictorian
Guest
The current popular argument against problems of irreducible complexity is that by some miraculous foresight or luck, species developed parts and features before they later needed them. You’re allowed to attribute it to anything but God.
P
PantheistsRule
Guest
This is FAST turning into an argument intended simply to debunk evolution, and not prove creationism, but I’ll bite… L
Life develops complexities in order to adapt. The world is not complex because of how it was designed or something, it is complex because life needs to adapt.
All life develops the characteristics it needs to fulfill its needs. These mutations and characteristics of animals/plants affect other animals’/plants’ abilities to survive, so they in turn adapt, and so on. Account for various other reasons for mutations (climate, terrain, plant life, etc.) and you get very complex and varied life.
Life develops complexities in order to adapt. The world is not complex because of how it was designed or something, it is complex because life needs to adapt.
All life develops the characteristics it needs to fulfill its needs. These mutations and characteristics of animals/plants affect other animals’/plants’ abilities to survive, so they in turn adapt, and so on. Account for various other reasons for mutations (climate, terrain, plant life, etc.) and you get very complex and varied life.
C
CWBetts
Guest
With every post you illuminate the you don’t know as much as you think you do. From your OP, this is demonstrated. For example: scientific theories don’t prove, they explain. As such creation can’t be “proven”. Furthermore, scientific theories are not “believed” or “disbelieved.” They are either accepted or rejected, based on evidence. The way I see it, until evolution can explain a structure with 40 unique proteins can develop gradually, or how proteins can be synthesized only in the presence of DNA, mRNA, and tRNA, when these are large proteins themselves (where did these things come form anyways?) you eill never convince me of anything.
E
East_Anglican
Guest
If you look at the Hebrew meaning of the names in Geneologies they mean things and in chronological order they say stuff like “The Lord shall come down have suffering and free from anguish”
There are three possible explanations for this.
1, God had it arranged so that parents would name their children those names.
2, The parents did it for no apparant reason what so ever and it’s coincidental.
3, The geneologies are there to point to Christ.
The first option would mean God did not give people free will, the second option is very unlikely and the third option is the only reasonable explanation there is. Any theologian worth their salt would go for option three.
First Adam is fallen man and the second Adam is Christ and what we become through him.
pilgrimsramblings.blogspot.com/2009/05/when-i-became-christian-in-1987-i-didnt.html
pilgrimsramblings.blogspot.com/2009/09/my-thiest-evolution-position.html
- Status