NationStates Jolt Archive

Who here on NS believes that human beings were created by a higher being, or evolved from bacteria when Earth was created?

Who here on NS believes that human beings were created by a higher being, or evolved from bacteria when Earth was created?
Wait... aren't bacteria a higher being?

So, our options are creationism and a misunderstanding of evolution only slightly less insipid than Hovind's?

Could you not have posted in one of the other c.40,000,000 creation vs. evolution threads instead of starting another?

Poll!!!!

I'd say evolution. What with evolution having proof and that.

The one that's science.

there are so many theories of creation. believing in evolution is much more simple.

'both'- wtf? Creationism and science completely contradict each other, despite what some people might like to think.

I created the earth. It's true, I swear.

I'm kind of interested about this creatation thing. What exactly is it?

Who here on NS believes that human beings were created by a higher being, or evolved from bacteria when Earth was created?

Third post with this topic this week.

Liasia']'both'- wtf? Creationism and science completely contradict each other, despite what some people might like to think.

Not if you deem the creation myth to be metaphorical, and evolution simply the means by which God created man.

Not if you deem the creation myth to be metaphorical, and evolution simply the means by which God created man.

I was under the impression that creationsists take everything the bible says literally. Evolution didn't happen in six days, and couldn't have developed over 6000 years- so Creationism =/= evolution any way you look at it.

Liasia']I was under the impression that creationsists take everything the bible says literally. Evolution didn't happen in six days, and couldn't have developed over 6000 years- so Creationism =/= evolution any way you look at it.

Well...How do you know how long the days were before you had a sun?

Well...How do you know how long the days were before you had a sun?

Hey, God wrote the bible remember. So he's magic/omnicient, and knows how long a day is.

http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html

Christianity and Evolution are not necessarily incompatible.

What is this "creatationism" of which you speak? :D

Not another one of these.

http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html

Christianity and Evolution are not necessarily incompatible.

Christianity and evolution maybe. Creationism and evolution, no.

Not another one of these.

Yup, 'nother one of these.

I recommend ice cream as a distraction.

Both. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind. Pure and simple.

Yup, 'nother one of these.

I recommend ice cream as a distraction.

I'm half way through a milkshake already.

Liasia']I was under the impression that creationsists take everything the bible says literally. Evolution didn't happen in six days, and couldn't have developed over 6000 years- so Creationism =/= evolution any way you look at it.

That only describes a pretty narrow cross-section of creationists.

But even so, those creationists could still maintain that evolution happened over six days. Those days might have been of non-standard length. Evolution might have happened really quickly under God's guidance. Remember, western religions are all about God's omnipotence. That requires that anything be possibly true.

I'm half way through a milkshake already.

See, I'm psychic. You can't tell me it wouldn't be awesome to have a psychic boyfriend
:p
Although I would've prefered electrokinesis...

The way I see it, both ideas can coexist to some degree, because evolution is a matter of science, while creationism is a matter of faith.
The way I see it, matters of faith, by their very nature, can not be proven true or false. One can believe in it or not, but one can't prove it or disprove it.
Matters of science, however, can be proven true or false, but only by scientific evidence, not by theological beliefs.

Who here on NS believes that human beings were created by a higher being, or evolved from bacteria when Earth was created?
There's this really funny picture of this middle aged looking guy. He has his hand to his forehead and he's grimacing like he just saw something that completely disgusts him. It's black and white and indictative of the 50's. It's a pretty humorous picture. But the best part is the caption. A caption is used as a way to put words with a picture so that the picture makes its meaning clear to the viewer. Anyway, the caption... hold on, it's too funny... the caption says... HA HA HA... the caption says, "Oh Jeeze!".... HO HO HO.... "Not this Shit again."

Easy call: http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/EvolutionSmiley.jpg

What is this "creatationism" of which you speak?

looks like a new species, which will probably wind up being a transitional one to a new equilibrium population following the dover ID extinction level event. sort of like the cdesign proponentsists (http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missing_link_cd.html), which arose after the edwards v. aguillard impact event (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard).

Creationist here.

Creationist here.
Why?

Poll!!!!

I'd say evolution. What with evolution having proof and that.
And creationism does have proof, though the tangibility somewhat defeats the purpose.

Insufficent data.

And creationism does have proof

true. creationism has proof and evolution doesn't. unfortunately for creationism, the proof it has is the proof that it is false.

Why?

I believe the Bible to be the literal word of God. And evolution could not take place according to Genesis because physical death is a symptom of spiritual death and the Bible makes it very clear that Adam and Eve were the first in creation to die spiritually.

Without death to weed out those who cannot adapt, evolution cannot be.

The way I see it, both ideas can coexist to some degree, because evolution is a matter of science, while creationism is a matter of faith.
The way I see it, matters of faith, by their very nature, can not be proven true or false. One can believe in it or not, but one can't prove it or disprove it.
Matters of science, however, can be proven true or false, but only by scientific evidence, not by theological beliefs.

Just to be pedantic, by the scientific method, things can be prove to be false, but a hypothesis can never be actually proven to be true. It can be supported to the point that it might as well be proven, but is always open to being disproven.

As for the "Is it possible to believe both?" idea, it is - depending on the definition of creationism being used. In most cases, the term Creationism is used to describe those who hold to a literal viewpoint of some of Genesis - and it contradicts evolutionary theory. But the word can be used to describe anyone who believes in some sort of Creation by a higher being - meaning that the two are not necessarily incompatible.

I believe the Bible to be the literal word of God. And evolution could not take place according to Genesis because physical death is a symptom of spiritual death and the Bible makes it very clear that Adam and Eve were the first in creation to die spiritually.

Without death to weed out those who cannot adapt, evolution cannot be.

And of course, since the bible is the word of God, when it says it's the word of God it has to be telling the truth, because it's the word of God.

I believe the Bible to be the literal word of God. And evolution could not take place according to Genesis because physical death is a symptom of spiritual death and the Bible makes it very clear that Adam and Eve were the first in creation to die spiritually.

So you believe in the literal truth of the second account of Creation. Do you discount the first, which clearly contradicts the second?

I believe the Bible to be the literal word of God. And evolution could not take place according to Genesis because physical death is a symptom of spiritual death and the Bible makes it very clear that Adam and Eve were the first in creation to die spiritually.

Without death to weed out those who cannot adapt, evolution cannot be.
Death to weed? What's your problem dude ... I'll get high if I want. Keep your hands off my bong dammit.

I believe the Bible to be the literal word of God.

well there's your problem. might i suggest that holding a belief that requires a huge number of other beliefs to be false is not exactly a good idea.

I believe the Bible to be the literal word of God.
So pi is 3?

So pi is 3?

I drew pi on the back of my hand...I may start a pi gang in Luxembourg.

Who here on NS believes that human beings were created by a higher being, or evolved from bacteria when Earth was created?

Well.. I consider the theory of evolution quite convincing; being supported by over a century of observations, experiments and tests and in agreement with the data obtained from other disciplines (e.g. requiring an age of the earth similar to the age considered reasonable by physicists, geologists, astronomers etc). It has some small holes; but at least there is something to shoot holes in.

As far as I know there currently is no scientific theory of intelligent design that has any backing scientific evidence, let alone a comparable amount. AFAIK the same is true for all the other thousands of theories that try to explain the diversity of life and the origin of humanity.

In conclusion: we have one theory with lots of supporting evidence, many succesful practical applications and few weaknesses; one theory that seems to be extremely popular due to Faith -but has no supporting scientific evidence nor any practical uses; and a few thousand (million?) others which receive very little attention.

The first seems the best choice.

I believe the Bible to be the literal word of God. And evolution could not take place according to Genesis because physical death is a symptom of spiritual death and the Bible makes it very clear that Adam and Eve were the first in creation to die spiritually.

Without death to weed out those who cannot adapt, evolution cannot be.
If you believe that, why bother debating?

I believe the Bible to be the literal word of God.

Which version of the Bible ? The translations differ somewhat, and the original Hebrew has the small problem that it is Hebrew: a language based on multilayered meanings and metaphores. Similar problems exist for the Aramic parts.

As far as I know there currently is no scientific theory of intelligent design that has any backing scientific evidence, let alone a comparable amount.

Indeed. And, when it comes right down to it, it is impossible for there to even be a scientific theory of intelligent design, because ID requires the inclusion of an unfalsifiable and untestable supernatural Creator.

In conclusion: we have one theory with lots of supporting evidence, many succesful practical applications and few weaknesses; one theory that seems to be extremely popular due to Faith -but has no supporting scientific evidence nor any practical uses; and a few thousand (million?) others which receive very little attention.

Be careful with the usage of the word "theory". In one sense, you are talking about a scientific theory. In the other, you are using an entirely different definition - the layman's definition. Unless you make a distinction between the two, it could get messy.

Be careful with the usage of the word "theory". In one sense, you are talking about a scientific theory. In the other, you are using an entirely different definition - the layman's definition. Unless you make a distinction between the two, it could get messy.

It won't. The scientists that actually understand the scientific method do not consider ID (or many of the other alternatives) science anyway; while the laymen simply do not care about the distinction between hypothesis and theory. Better to just point out that two things both being "just a theory" doesn't mean they have equal value.

Both. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind. Pure and simple.

Science without religion is like a dolphin without a unicycle, whereas religion without science is like flying pink elephants without alcohol.

true. creationism has proof and evolution doesn't. unfortunately for creationism, the proof it has is the proof that it is false.
yes, that's basically my tangibility comment.

It won't. The scientists that actually understand the scientific method do not consider ID (or many of the other alternatives) science anyway; while the laymen simply do not care about the distinction between hypothesis and theory. Better to just point out that two things both being "just a theory" doesn't mean they have equal value.

Of course laymen don't care - mostly because they don't know. If we take care to point out the differences, then only those who are already going to stick their fingers in their ears and go, "LALALALALALALA" are going to ignore it.

Even using the same term to describe them will place them on the same level to many people.

Liasia']'both'- wtf? Creationism and science completely contradict each other, despite what some people might like to think.


No. God created the universe, and he helps creatures adapt to changing times by allowig them to evolve. (my beliefs)

On a side note, a warning against all fat people: God tossed a pebble at the dinosaurs when their fatness pissed him off (lol JK:p )

just a point I which to ask the board, are all people who believe in creationism either, Muslims, Christians or Jewish? Are there any creastionist out here who are not from these religious backgrounds?

Personally, it seems to me the whole creationsim vs evolution debate is very much limited to cultures who follow these religions. From where I come from, there is no debate. Evolution is the accepted idea, much like ohm laws in physics. The creationsim view looks like a religious belief that people are trying very very hard to hold on too despite every evidence to the contrary.

just a point I which to ask the board, are all people who believe in creationism either, Muslims, Christians or Jewish?

Simply because other religions have other creation stories. While a significant part of the worlds population, religions like Hinduism are not popular in the western societies where ID and creationism get so much attention. Only the "alternatives" offered by things like scientology get some attention.

just a point I which to ask the board, are all people who believe in creationism either, Muslims, Christians or Jewish? Are there any creastionist out here who are not from these religious backgrounds?

Personally, it seems to me the whole creationsim vs evolution debate is very much limited to cultures who follow these religions. From where I come from, there is no debate. Evolution is the accepted idea, much like ohm laws in physics. The creationsim view looks like a religious belief that people are trying very very hard to hold on too despite every evidence to the contrary.
Well, there are Hindu creationists, but Hinduism states that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and I believe they allow room for evolution. There's also supposedly creationists from the American Indian religions, but it's unknown if they're serious or just mocking the Christian creationists.

Don't forget the Pastafarians. I know a girl who I'm convinced is a Pastafarian...From a distance, it just looks like goth clothing she wears, but it's really pirate regalia.

So you believe in the literal truth of the second account of Creation. Do you discount the first, which clearly contradicts the second?

Actually, the first acount is saying what happened on each day. The second acount describes how the creation of man occured on the sixth day. I assume that's what you are referring to.

And of course, since the bible is the word of God, when it says it's the word of God it has to be telling the truth, because it's the word of God.

Why do you trust anything? Why do you trust any ancient writing?

And I know everyone hates to hear this, but the answer is faith. I have faith that Jesus died for my sins. I also have faith that if there is a God, that he would care enough to make Himself known. Christianity is the explanation that just makes the most sense to me.

Actually, the first acount is saying what happened on each day. The second acount describes how the creation of man occured on the sixth day. I assume that's what you are referring to.

No, I am describing two entirely different accounts - written, as far as theologians can tell - by two different authors.

The second cannot only be describing what happens on the 6th day, because it describes things that had supposedly already happened, like the creation of plants and animals.

In the first account, the Priestly account, humankind (both male and female) are created as the pinnacle of creation. God is depicted as all-powerful and perfect.

In the second, the Yahwist account, Adam is created before much of the rest of creation - even woman. All of Creation is made for him. God is depicted as fallible - as making mistakes.

well there's your problem. might i suggest that holding a belief that requires a huge number of other beliefs to be false is not exactly a good idea.

What's the problem with thinking other's beliefs are wrong? You obviously think mine are wrong.

Why do you trust anything? Why do you trust any ancient writing?

I do not, unless multiple independent sources and verifications agree with it. It also helps if the language of the first document is one suited for conveying facts - which is not the case with the Old Testament.

No, I am describing two entirely different accounts - written, as far as theologians can tell - by two different authors.

The second cannot only be describing what happens on the 6th day, because it describes things that had supposedly already happened, like the creation of plants and animals.

In the first account, the Priestly account, humankind (both male and female) are created as the pinnacle of creation. God is depicted as all-powerful and perfect.

In the second, the Yahwist account, Adam is created before much of the rest of creation - even woman. All of Creation is made for him. God is depicted as fallible - as making mistakes.

I don't know any theologian who has said that. I know many Bible-bashers who support that theory, though.

Plants were created on the third (?) day and animals on the fifth and sixth days. Man was created after the animals on the sixth day according to both accounts.

I do not, unless multiple independent sources and verifications agree with it. It also helps if the language of the first document is one suited for conveying facts - which is not the case with the Old Testament.

Well what's the purpose of a language (especially an ancient one) if not to convey facts?

Why do you trust anything? Why do you trust any ancient writing?

And I know everyone hates to hear this, but the answer is faith. I have faith that Jesus died for my sins. I also have faith that if there is a God, that he would care enough to make Himself known. Christianity is the explanation that just makes the most sense to me.

Define "ancient". I'm not so keen on believing the things I'd read in Egyptian hiroglyphics just because they say to believe it.

Well what's the purpose of a language (especially an ancient one) if not to convey facts?

To convey ideas, not facts. Oterwise, why would we have a fiction section in libraries?

So pi is 3?

I know of no place in the Bible where pi is said to be 3!!!!!

And the fact that so many persons resort to that argument, though they have never investigated it themselves is disturbing.

What's the problem with thinking other's beliefs are wrong? You obviously think mine are wrong.

not other's
other

a literal reading of the bible requires you to hold a vast number of trivially and obviously false beliefs. including the idea that the sky is held up by pillars, the sun goes round the earth, the earth is approximately 6,000 years old, pi is 3, etc. holding that one belief does such great damage to the truth values of so many other beliefs you hold that it just makes no sense to continue holding it.

I know of no place in the Bible where pi is said to be 3!!!!!

And the fact that so many persons resort to that argument, though they have never investigated it themselves is disturbing.

I think it mentions the diameter of a basin as 10 units, and the circumfrence as 30, which would make pi = 3.

Define "ancient". I'm not so keen on believing the things I'd read in Egyptian hiroglyphics just because they say to believe it.

Heroditus claimed to be a learned Greek who recorded events which happened at the time. He is often called the Father of History. Why is he to believed over the Bible?

I think it mentions the diameter of a basin as 10 units, and the circumfrence as 30, which would make pi = 3.

Verse, please.

I know of no place in the Bible where pi is said to be 3!!!!!

And the fact that so many persons resort to that argument, though they have never investigated it themselves is disturbing.

Kings 7:23: 'And he [Hiram on behalf of King Solomon] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.'

Well what's the purpose of a language (especially an ancient one) if not to convey facts?

As someone else already said: to convey ideas.

The specific problem with Hebrew however is that while it is possible to write a document that is the literal truth according to the writer, the nature of the language makes it impossible for you as the reader to know what that truth *is*. There are too many double meanings, and there is too much room for interpretation. Great for stories and philosophy, not so great for accurate historical accounts and commandments.

Heroditus claimed to be a learned Greek who recorded events which happened at the time. He is often called the Father of History. Why is he to believed over the Bible?

Well...What kind of events are we talking about...Are they events that tend to defy logic, physics, and general rationality? Are they events someone could make personal gains from making up?

P.S. Events rather similar to the stories of common people that may have been adapted by the writer?

Verse, please.
Post 69

I know of no place in the Bible where pi is said to be 3!!!!!

And the fact that so many persons resort to that argument, though they have never investigated it themselves is disturbing.
1 Kings 7:23

And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

Kings 7:23: 'And he [Hiram on behalf of King Solomon] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.'

similarly, 2 chron 4:2
"He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it. "

similarly, 2 chron 4:2
"He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it. "
I was going to mention that one as well but kept it simple so I could be first :)

not other's
other

a literal reading of the bible requires you to hold a vast number of trivially and obviously false beliefs. including the idea that the sky is held up by pillars, the sun goes round the earth, the earth is approximately 6,000 years old, pi is 3, etc. holding that one belief does such great damage to the truth values of so many other beliefs you hold that it just makes no sense to continue holding it.

If one reads the Bible literally then one reads it as it was meant to be read. I read the PSalms as poetry, because they are peotry which makes frequent use of symbolism. I read history as history. I read theology as theology.

And despite what people want to claim, it really isn't hard to see the shift between books.

Where does Scripture say that the sum goes round the earth? It doesn't. It says as the sun travels through the sky. Which is exactly what it does! From the human perspective, the sun moves through the sky. We cannot see the earth move around the sun.

I do not see enough evidence to prove that the earth is more than 6,000 years old. Though if I did, it would still not change a literal reading of the Bible.

I want a verse before I discuss this claim about pi.

snip
I want a verse before I discuss this claim about pi.
Has been provided at least 3 times

Damn, I thought 'creatation' was something new. Oh well.

I want a verse before I discuss this claim about pi.
1 Kings 7:23

And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.


How many more times will we have to give this to you?

Damn, I thought 'creatation' was something new. Oh well.

We can make something up, start a cult and get filthy rich ?

Kings 7:23: 'And he [Hiram on behalf of King Solomon] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.'

And why is this the diameter? Could it not be measuring the curve? My math abilities are extremely lacking.

1 Kings 7:23




How many more times will we have to give this to you?
Until it doesn't involve doing math.

We can make something up, start a cult and get filthy rich ?

Dibs on High Priest!

If one reads the Bible literally then one reads it as it was meant to be read. I read the PSalms as poetry, because they are peotry which makes frequent use of symbolism. I read history as history. I read theology as theology.

And despite what people want to claim, it really isn't hard to see the shift between books.

Where does Scripture say that the sum goes round the earth? It doesn't. It says as the sun travels through the sky. Which is exactly what it does! From the human perspective, the sun moves through the sky. We cannot see the earth move around the sun.

I do not see enough evidence to prove that the earth is more than 6,000 years old. Though if I did, it would still not change a literal reading of the Bible.

I want a verse before I discuss this claim about pi.

So God just put those fossils in the ground - fossils that have been examined, dated to show they are millions of years old in many cases and far beyond 6,000 years - just to screw around and have a bit of fun, then?

1 Kings 7:23




How many more times will we have to give this to you?

I never saw the verse because I was responding to a different post. I was being interupted (sp?) and I didn't see the posts until after I was finished. Sorry if I frustrated you.

And why is this the diameter? Could it not be measuring the curve?

That would make it even more wrong. If one accepts it as an *approximation* of the diameter it is however quite acceptable; but that is not what the passage literally says.

Wow... I'm not a Christian, but I definetly have to side with them on this. Evolution sucks, simple as that.

Wow... I'm not a Christian, but I definetly have to side with them on this. Evolution sucks, simple as that.

You mean, evolution that has huge amounts of scientifically-tested and analysed evidence, and creationism that has...faith?

And why is this the diameter? Could it not be measuring the curve? My math abilities are extremely lacking.

How the ^&*( could you get from "one brim to the other" by measuring the curve?

Here's some data on Geologic dating methods:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html

and on Pi:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi

Wow... I'm not a Christian, but I definetly have to side with them on this. Evolution sucks, simple as that.

...What now? Got something against my long lost monkey cousins many many times removed?

So God just put those fossils in the ground - fossils that have been examined, dated to show they are millions of years old in many cases and far beyond 6,000 years - just to screw around and have a bit of fun, then?

The same dating labeled a living butterfly as 16,00 years old. I think that's very reliable.

Also, everyone forgets about the flood. All that water would probably produce enough weight to create "fossils." Look at the petrified forest. The same thing happened to the trees at Mt. St. Helen's eruption. Now if there were billions, upon billions, upon billions.... of agllons of water on top, don't you think the pressure, might speed the fossilization process up a bit?

not other's
other

a literal reading of the bible requires you to hold a vast number of trivially and obviously false beliefs. including the idea that the sky is held up by pillars, the sun goes round the earth, the earth is approximately 6,000 years old, pi is 3, etc. holding that one belief does such great damage to the truth values of so many other beliefs you hold that it just makes no sense to continue holding it.and there's your problem right there.
unfortunatly, there are others who also believe the literal reading. :(

From the human perspective...

so it's to be taken literally, but from the perspective of humans who didn't know any better? and we are supposed to hold this in higher regard than the reasoning of people who do know better?

I do not see enough evidence to prove that the earth is more than 6,000 years old.

we have cities older than that. we have continuous series of tree rings older than that. we have annual flood deposit layers piling up for longer than that. we have a variety of radioactive dating techniques that all consistently give dates older than that. we see stars that are more than 6,000 light years away.

at best you can say that you haven't looked.

The same dating labeled a living butterfly as 16,00 years old. I think that's very reliable.

Also, everyone forgets about the flood. All that water would probably produce enough weight to create "fossils." Look at the petrified forest. The same thing happened to the trees at Mt. St. Helen's eruption. Now if there were billions, upon billions, upon billions.... of agllons of water on top, don't you think the pressure, might speed the fossilization process up a bit?

Except that the planet doesn't have that much water...

The same dating labeled a living butterfly as 16,00 years old. I think that's very reliable.

Source for this?

Also, everyone forgets about the flood. All that water would probably produce enough weight to create "fossils." Look at the petrified forest. The same thing happened to the trees at Mt. St. Helen's eruption. Now if there were billions, upon billions, upon billions.... of agllons of water on top, don't you think the pressure, might speed the fossilization process up a bit?

Or for this?

Wow... I'm not a Christian, but I definetly have to side with them on this. Evolution sucks, simple as that.
Why?

Wow... I'm not a Christian, but I definetly have to side with them on this. Evolution sucks, simple as that.
How, why does it suck? It has ample evidence to support it, whereas creation relies on stories that are thousands of years old and have been retold and misinterpreted far too many times to be reliable, in any religion. Did you ever play Telephone when you were younger? Where one person whispers a message to the next person, and the message gets repeated to the next person and the next all the way around the circle or the classroom, until it goes back to the first person, and it's nothing at ALL like it started out? Think of how many times creation stories have gone around like that, and what that means for their integrity. Meanwhile, evolution is leading the pack in supporting evidence. Evolution, please!

That would make it even more wrong. If one accepts it as an *approximation* of the diameter it is however quite acceptable; but that is not what the passage literally says.

Well, that's food for thought. But my belief isn't changed. I need to ponder on that for a while.

Except that the planet doesn't have that much water...

Well, we are talking about an omnipotent God...

I think it mentions the diameter of a basin as 10 units, and the circumfrence as 30, which would make pi = 3.
considering their mathmatical knowledge back then, that's only off by .14. while wrong, back then it was extremetly accurate.

Well, we are talking about an omnipotent God...

Even though he can't touch people riding iron chariots?

Source for this?



Or for this?

I have neither of the sources at my finger tips. I would get them for you, but I becoming bored with this conversation, and I need to toss this idea of pi around before I continue to defend what may be a lost cause.

considering their mathmatical knowledge back then, that's only off by .14. while wrong, back then it was extremetly accurate.
The Babylonians, Sumerians, and Egyptians had all independently calculated pi to 3.14 or better hundreds of years earlier.

How, why does it suck? It has ample evidence to support it, whereas creation relies on stories that are thousands of years old and have been retold and misinterpreted far too many times to be reliable, in any religion. Did you ever play Telephone when you were younger? Where one person whispers a message to the next person, and the message gets repeated to the next person and the next all the way around the circle or the classroom, until it goes back to the first person, and it's nothing at ALL like it started out? Think of how many times creation stories have gone around like that, and what that means for their integrity. Meanwhile, evolution is leading the pack in supporting evidence. Evolution, please!
I would say it sucks also. because in Truth, Evolution does not disprove the idea of a superior being starting the process.

yet those who hold their belief in Evolution assumes and will argue that it does. thus proving that Evolutionists and Creationists share the same size mind.

The same dating labeled a living butterfly as 16,00 years old. I think that's very reliable.

1) source?
2) how would one even go about radiocarbon dating a living butterfly, and who the hell would try? it's just not used for such purposes.

Also, everyone forgets about the flood.

and it'd be best for you if they continued to do so. you don't want to look anymore foolish than you already do, do you? or maybe you'd care to explain the order in which we find fossils?

Perhaps God rounds.

The Babylonians, Sumerians, and Egyptians had all independently calculated pi to 3.14 or better hundreds of years earlier.
and back then, how keen were they on accuracy? especially when it comes to the Uneducated masses.

Even though he can't touch people riding iron chariots?
Judges 1:19 to be precise.

considering their mathmatical knowledge back then, that's only off by .14. while wrong, back then it was extremetly accurate.

A cubit's about a foot and a half. They had some form of rulers back then, would they really go off by 25-26 inches?

and back then, how keen were they on accuracy? especially when it comes to the Uneducated masses.

I dunno, but he's got a point...

The value of π has been known in some form since antiquity. As early as the 19th century BC, Babylonian mathematicians were using π=25/8, which is within 0.5% of the true value.

and back then, how keen were they on accuracy? especially when it comes to the Uneducated masses.
It still disproves the claim that the Bible is infalliable, which was what was being debated.

Wait... aren't bacteria a higher being?
I suppose they are, if they are airborne bacteria...

I would say it sucks also. because in Truth, Evolution does not disprove the idea of a superior being starting the process.

Correct, but it does disagree with the way proposed by the Bible; just as stellar evolution disagrees with the biblical order in which sun, planets and stars were created.

While ID pretends to be religion neutral, Creationism is Christian.

Perhaps God rounds.

Why? God could tell you what the last digit of pi is.

Why? God could tell you what the last digit of pi is.
Last time I spoke to Him, He was still trying to figure it out... Well, actually, I'm lying. I didn't speak at Him, He shouted at me. :mad:

I'm sorry, what language is this again? "Creatation"?

And of course, since the bible is the word of God, when it says it's the word of God it has to be telling the truth, because it's the word of God.

That's incredibly funny.

Xranate, even if a living butterfly was found to be 1600 years old by carbon dating, this is feasable. Carbon dating, which measures the amount of carbon-14 left in a specific sample and doing some calculations based on it, has a very large margin of error (much more than 1600 years - about 60000 years). Therefore, it is feasable that this test could find the butterfly to be much older than it really is - anyone who's had a statistics class could tell you this. Carbon dating is much more useful when very long periods of time have passed - such as in fossils, which have been here for up to hundreds of millions of years.

Also, if a flood of massive proportions inundated the earth a few thousand years ago, why hasn't there been large-scale signs of this? If a gigantic flood had truly occurred, there should have been tell-tale signs of this (I.E. large-scale erosion in young mountain ranges such as the Himalayas, a worldwide layer of identifiable sediment from that time period , etc.). Where are they?

Well, we are talking about an omnipotent God...

The amount of water to flood the world to a depth of 8,848 meters is astronomical. That's the height of Everest, even if you detract for it's growth over the last 5000 years you're still looking at 8818 meters of seawater.
How much water? Doing some quick calculations, about 760 million cubic miles of water are required to achieve this. And that is over and above the water already in the oceans and lakes.

The earth's total water supply is 326 million cubic miles, and most of that is already in use to fill ocean and lake basins. It cannot be used a second time to go on top of itself. Available in the atmosphere, inside the earth, and we'll throw in glacier melt, we would be hard pressed to come up with 10 million cubic miles available for a massive flood. So where did the other 750 cubic million miles of water come from? And where did it go when the flood waters receded? It did not exist before the flood, and it does not exist now. But apparently an amount of water more than double that already existing on earth appeared out of nowhere, and then disappeared without a trace.

Let's do another take on this flood. It apparently took 40 days to go from a state of normalcy to a the full 29,060 foot flood. That means the waters were rising by 726 feet a day - about 6 inches a minute. And if you read your bible carefully, you'll find that Noah did not even start loading the Ark with family and animals until after the rain started and the fountains of the deep (springs) opened. Rather questionable isn't it that collecting the all the animals and loading them onto the boat was remotely possible? (You can find elsewhere on the web discussions of the ark's cubic capacity against the number of animals and feed requirements.)

http://www.apatheticagnostic.com/articles/meds/med04/med076.html


Heh.

considering their mathmatical knowledge back then, that's only off by .14. while wrong, back then it was extremetly accurate.

no it isn't. they're off by either half a cubit (which is what, 2 hands?) on the diameter, or a cubit and a half on the circumference. or maybe it wasn't really all that circular. in any case, something clearly went wrong somewhere.

Even if you accept that it's an approximation 31 1/2 cubits is vastly closer.

What if the day in the Bible is like 1000yrs in earth time? After all, a day isn't 24 hrs everywhere in the universe. God could've made man and it evolved I guess

Carbon dating, which measures the amount of carbon-14 left in a specific sample and doing some calculations based on it, has a very large margin of error (much more than 1600 years - about 60000 years).

nah man, 60,000 is the maximum age radiocarbon dating can be used to measure. the error is much lower than that and relatively low in general.

An omnipotent God does solve all of these consistency problems, because there's no reason to believe that physical laws have been constant throughout earth's history. The bible, taken literally, still clearly has gaps in it - it doesn't describe the creation of all humans, for example, else whom did Cain marry? - but that simply means it's incomplete.

But that requires that God has interfered many times in order to make all of the stories fit each other, and it very quickly ceases to be reasonably to believe in him. William of Ockham woulkdn't have approved.

Aye...And obviously the people writting this stuff would be God inspired and couldn't write down anything false for the bible to be infalible...Maybe God needs to learn pi (http://learnpi.ytmnd.com).

By no stretch of the imagination is Creationism science. There is no more evidence for the bible's creation story than there is for Odin and his brothers slaying a giant and making his body into earth, and then making man and woman out of alder and ash trees.

Here is a fun web page: http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/thingscreationistshate.htm

I would say it sucks also. because in Truth, Evolution does not disprove the idea of a superior being starting the process.

yet those who hold their belief in Evolution assumes and will argue that it does. thus proving that Evolutionists and Creationists share the same size mind.
I never said that it disproved a superior being's involvement. I just don't see how evolution agrees with most of the prevalent-in-Western-society creation stories (which are what seem to be in question here) unless you have an open mind, which most fundamentalists do not, by their very nature.

Even if you accept that it's an approximation 31 1/2 cubits is vastly closer.

So the bible's literal, but inaccurate. Nice.

What if the day in the Bible is like 1000yrs in earth time? After all, a day isn't 24 hrs everywhere in the universe. God could've made man and it evolved I guess

To fit with science the days would have had to be of vastly different length, and in the order of a million (or even billion ) years instead of 1000.
They would also need to be reordered; since according to Genesis earth was created before the sun (as were fruit bearing trees apparantly...).

So the bible's literal, but inaccurate. Nice.


You know, I think they should up the reading exams in school. So many kids today simply can't follow simple concepts when written down.

An omnipotent God does solve all of these consistency problems, because there's no reason to believe that physical laws have been constant throughout earth's history.

other than the fact that any such changes would have observable effects on both the planet and the universe as a whole, and we don't see any of them.

nah man, 60,000 is the maximum age radiocarbon dating can be used to measure. the error is much lower than that and relatively low in general.

To date stuff older than that, you have to look for different isotopes in the layers of sediment.

other than the fact that any such changes would have observable effects on both the planet and the universe as a whole, and we don't see any of them.

His noodly apendage hides them?

<-------Staunch ID/Creationist here.

And so will my boys :D

While ID pretends to be religion neutral, Creationism is Christian.
Not so fast, little thing. ID cards are my invention, in the first place. As to Creationism, it existed well before Christ and isn't unique to Christians at all. So beware with your tongue, unless you wan't to join the queue for a Visa to my homeland.

In any case, it's just a bedtime story for little things. Nothing there worth reading, right? I mean... Come on, are you expecting to learn any truths or secrets, from a book that tells you that God made Eve from one of Adam's rib? Who gave Adam the blood necessary to perform such a delicate surgery? Preposterous.

Can't you understand? That's just like saying children can learn moral values from Pinocchio. When are you going to learn? Ban the bible.

<-------Staunch ID/Creationist here.

And so will my boys :D


That surprises no one.

<-------Staunch ID/Creationist here.

And so will my boys :D

I'd reccomend less starch, personally.

Not so fast, little thing.

I am almost 2 meters tall :p

As to Creationism, it existed well before Christ and isn't unique to Christians at all.

Creation stories and myths aren't. Creationism however is the designation for the movement that claims the Biblical account of Genesis is valid science.

<-------Staunch ID/Creationist here.

And so will my boys :D

Staunch moron with utterly no grasp of science then. Science is right when its theories are what allows people to come up with all that great technology and medicine that makes your life better, but wrong when it comes to evolution? Come on, give me a fucking break.

Creationists are just too weak to be able to handle the fact that a lot of what allowed humans to rise was mere chance mutation. Evolution has been under attack for more than one hundred years. If there was an actual weakness in the theory, it would have been found by now and thrown out. But none have, and it remains pretty rock solid. Soon they'll be trying to challenge the theory of gravity.

Creation stories and myths aren't. Creationism however is the designation for the movement that claims the Biblical account of Genesis is valid science.

Exactly. There is exactly zero evidence for "Creationism." There is no more evidence for it than for the Norse creation myth, or the ancient Greek/Roman creation myth, or the Hindu creation myth, or any of the many Native American stories of how the universe came to be, among a great host of other creation myths.

Also, if the Earth is only 6000 old as Creationism claims, then how is it that the light of stars millions of lightyears away reaches us? Hmmmm?

As to Creationism, it existed well before Christ and isn't unique to Christians at all.

nah. creationism is a particular movement, largely within american protestantism (though it's been branching out), that arose as part of the general fundamentalist reaction to modernism and science, and what they saw as selling out by mainline/liberal branches of the church to those forces.

I am almost 2 meters tall :p.
Still short, I am about 4, until someone steps on my toes...

Creation stories and myths aren't. Creationism however is the designation for the movement that claims the Biblical account of Genesis is valid science.
That's more like it..

"And He taught Adam the names of all things; then He placed them before the angels, and said: "Tell me the names of these if ye are right."
[Qur'an 002.031]

The Qur'an is another pile of rubbish, by the way. I would advise anyone not to waste time with this book either. Go and watch The Day After or Armageddon. Much more to learn from there...

<-------Staunch ID/Creationist here.

And so will my boys :D
How do you plan on making your boys not think? Don't do anything rash to them.

I think the thing that a lot of people don't realize is that it's very possible the earth, and even our solar system, hadn't been created for a number of millenia/eons after the beginning of the universe.

It hadn't really occurred to me until about a week ago. I also coincidided the words "Beginning of the world" with "Beginning of the universe", when the two are separate and exclusive of one another.

nah. creationism is a particular movement, largely within american protestantism (though it's been branching out), that arose as part of the general fundamentalist reaction to modernism and science, and what they saw as selling out by mainline/liberal branches of the church to those forces.
You know what I like about you, little thing? I love red.
I've been watching humans fighting for possession of that book for 2000 years. Every bloody day I have listen your Christians, Jews and Muslims on my back, asking me who was right to fight for the book whining, moaning and complaining they don't understand why they ended up in Hell. Do you want my job?

Kings 7:23: 'And he [Hiram on behalf of King Solomon] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.'

According to the units of measurement presented therein, pi does correctly equal 3, within the accuracy of a cubit.

Thus, according to the normal use of approximation, there is no error. Unless of course you are desperately trying to find any reason not to believe in or obey the God of the Bible...

Cubit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubit) is the name for any one of many units of measure used by various ancient peoples. The natural cubit is based on the distance between thumb and another finger to the elbow on an average person. It was employed consistently — to measure originally cords and textiles for example — also in Middle-Ages up to the Early Modern Times. This natural cubit measures 24 digits or 6 palms or 1½ foot. This is about 45 cm or 18 inches.

After having contact with the universal consciousness (before that I was an agnostic /leaning atheist) I have come to believe that all energy is part of this consciousness and that this conscious energy began the process of biological life. After the simplest biological life forms came into being they constantly adapted to their environment through perception of what was needed and force of will to change DNA code which were tested by survival of the fittest - not by random mutations. Of course my theory is just that and there is no proof that I can offer that consciousness guides evolution but that is the reason I decided to choose the "Both" option because I believe in evolution but not the strict scientific definition of it obviously.

Staunch moron with utterly no grasp of science then. Science is right when its theories are what allows people to come up with all that great technology and medicine that makes your life better, but wrong when it comes to evolution? Come on, give me a fucking break.

Creationists are just too weak to be able to handle the fact that a lot of what allowed humans to rise was mere chance mutation. Evolution has been under attack for more than one hundred years. If there was an actual weakness in the theory, it would have been found by now and thrown out. But none have, and it remains pretty rock solid. Soon they'll be trying to challenge the theory of gravity.

It's simple: It just wouldn't happen. So many things in nature point to a creator...it's unreal.

I attended a seminar on why evolution is wrong....I'll have to dig up my notes if I still havem' (It was free, required, and I slept)

According to the units of measurement presented therein, pi does correctly equal 3, within the accuracy of a cubit.

Thus, according to the normal use of approximation, there is no error. Unless of course you are desperately trying to find any reason not to believe in or obey the God of the Bible...



But it's not accurate to w/i a cubit and, as it has been shown, more accurate measurements had been made already. Why would an "infallible" source use innacurrate approximations?

You know what I like about you, little thing? I love red.
I've been watching humans fighting for possession of that book for 2.000.
Every bloody day I have listen your Christians, Jews and Muslims on my back, asking me who was right to fight for the book whining, moaning and complaining they don't understand why they ended up in Hell. Do you want my job?


You can't fool me, even though you are a master of lies. I know that Earth is the true Hell. You big silly.

But it's not accurate to w/i a cubit and, as it has been shown, more accurate measurements had been made already. Why would an "infallible" source use innacurrate approximations?
Maybe when you're infallible you get lazy in your notes?

It's simple: It just wouldn't happen. So many things in nature point to a creator...it's unreal.

I attended a seminar on why evolution is wrong....I'll have to dig up my notes if I still havem' (It was free, required, and I slept)

Free and required?

Ha ha. Everything in nature points to evolution. If life was designed, it would have been done a lot better.

What kind of an idiot would give whales hip bones?

I used to be a bit more tolerant, but the more I learn, the more I see that those who say that "creation" is more likely than evolution are being complete fools and have no understanding of how science works.

Free and required?

Ha ha. Everything in nature points to evolution. If life was designed, it would have been done a lot better.

What kind of an idiot would give whales hip bones?

The same one that designates pi=3?

The same one that designates pi=3?

I guess so. If Creationists are right (and they're not, obviously), then their god is pretty stupid. Putting hip bones in whales and some snakes? Putting tail bones in humans that serve no purpose and just get broken? Designating 3 as pi? What a dumbass.

You can't fool me, even though you are a master of lies. I know that Earth is the true Hell. You big silly.
I have not lied to you, my little thing. Not yet...

So pi is 3?

No. Pi is a Greek letter. In Mathematics and some areas of Physics it is used instead of writing an infinitely long number.

And to my mind, as an archaeologist and a Christian, I think perhaps the creationist story is not meant to be taken literally, but as a way of putting evolution in a new light. The fact is we can neither conclusively prove that God does or does not exist, so for all we know he started evolution, and guides it, or it is the random result of survival and adaption. Its a hard call, and an argument I have managed to avoid quite happily for many years now.

I guess so. If Creationists are right (and they're not, obviously), then their god is pretty stupid.

And who are you to judge that? Just remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I have not lied to you, my little thing. Not yet...


Hmmm, should I believe the great Satan? Such a hard decision.

Someone's probably made this commment already, but I'm just a big fan of the completely misspelled thread title. Managing to misspell both creationism and evolution in one go is quite nice. ;)

Well...How do you know how long the days were before you had a sun?

A "day" is still an exact length of time, albeit an arbitrary one - 86.4 kiloseconds. If God is omniscient and immutable, than he a) is already aware of all future actions, and b) is perfectly predictable in that his intentions, motivations, and thought processes cannot change over time. What that means is that He would already know the exact dimensions and traits of the Earth prior to the actual creation event, and would thus already know the length of a day. In addition, the Bible was written (presumably) post-creation, and was (supposedly) inspired by God, therefore its wording is in a post-creation context (a day is 86.4 kilos long) and is knowingly defined so by God. Ergo, creation assuming it occurred and as defined by the Bible, occurred in 604,800 seconds.

Someone's probably made this commment already, but I'm just a big fan of the completely misspelled thread title. Managing to misspell both creationism and evolution in one go is quite nice. ;)
Maybe they are dyslexic, and if not well does it really matter? I mean you understood what they meant.

How do you plan on making your boys not think? Don't do anything rash to them.

Lobotomy, if you vaccuum out kids' brains they'll believe faeries made the world out of poop, if you want to tell them so. And, it's about as far fetched as the Ancient Hebrews' story.

And who are you to judge that? Just remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

What are you talking about? Absence of evidence and blah blah blah?

All I was implying is that god wouldn't have designed life forms so stupidly. Or designated pi as three. And if god did, then that's pretty dumb.

A "day" is still an exact length of time, albeit an arbitrary one - 86.4 kiloseconds. If God is omniscient and immutable, than he a) is already aware of all future actions, and b) is perfectly predictable in that his intentions, motivations, and thought processes cannot change over time. What that means is that He would already know the exact dimensions and traits of the Earth prior to the actual creation event, and would thus already know the length of a day. In addition, the Bible was written (presumably) post-creation, and was (supposedly) inspired by God, therefore its wording is in a post-creation context (a day is 86.4 kilos long) and is knowingly defined so by God. Ergo, creation assuming it occurred and as defined by the Bible, occurred in 604,800 seconds.

Perhaps it was a day as defined by a universal constant rather than a planetary one.

What are you talking about? Absence of evidence and blah blah blah?

All I was implying is that god wouldn't have designed life forms so stupidly. Or designated pi as three. And if god did, then that's pretty dumb.

Don't get me wrong here, I am not supporting the whole "God created everything and anyone who says otherwise is wrong" feeling, but perhaps God made things the way they are to make us use the brains He gave us?

Perhaps it was a day as defined by a universal constant rather than a planetary one.

To an immortal being, it seems to me that the human day would be a pretty useless time unit to use. It would be like us counting time in millionths of milliseconds.

A day for a being that lives for eternity would probably be eons long to humans.

I am not an American, so please forgive me, but is it true that some schools now are teaching Creationism instead of Biology? Because if so that is really rather more stupid than I thought possible of a supposedly rational country. By all means teach R.E. but Biology is an essential part of the school curriculum, and should be taught irrespective of religious views. Bearing in mind that evolution is still classed as a theory.

Perhaps it was a day as defined by a universal constant rather than a planetary one.

But that isn't a day. If God meant a Great Turn (one rotation of the galaxy) or 10^1,000,000,000 Planck seconds, or (ch)^(1/10,000) why didn't he say so? Also, if God created the universe, there was no universe or set of constants beforehand, so the time he took can't be defined that way. Though I suppose you can argue that with the omniscience/perfect predictability argument.

Don't get me wrong here, I am not supporting the whole "God created everything and anyone who says otherwise is wrong" feeling, but perhaps God made things the way they are to make us use the brains He gave us?

I do believe fervantly in god. However, I do not think that god spends all the time interfering with life. I think god made the laws that govern the way the universe works. Maybe this sounds crazy.

I think god simply made things work in the way that they do so that life would simply develop and change on its own course (evolution). I think if god had designed us from the beginning, there are a vast number of conspicuous engineering flaws that would not be present. Probably sounds weird, but whatever.

Naturally, I completely dismiss the Christian Fundamentalist idea of god.

I am not an American, so please forgive me, but is it true that some schools now are teaching Creationism instead of Biology? Because if so that is really rather more stupid than I thought possible of a supposedly rational country. By all means teach R.E. but Biology is an essential part of the school curriculum, and should be taught irrespective of religious views. Bearing in mind that evolution is still classed as a theory.

They are teaching Creationism in science classes, especially biology. That answer your question?

But that isn't a day. If God meant a Great Turn (one rotation of the galaxy) or 10^1,000,000,000 Planck seconds, or (ch)^(1/10,000) why didn't he say so? Also, if God created the universe, there was no universe or set of constants beforehand, so the time he took can't be defined that way. Though I suppose you can argue that with the omniscience/perfect predictability argument.

First off perhaps it wasn't said like that becuase the words and concepts had not arrived in the human collective at the point of writing. And yes while we condisder that everything that exisits, must exist in the universe, maybe there is another universe, running concurrantly to this one and God exists there, but interacts in ours. To be quite honest I don't know, and I don't think anyone ever will.

To an immortal being, it seems to me that the human day would be a pretty useless time unit to use. It would be like us counting time in millionths of milliseconds.

A day for a being that lives for eternity would probably be eons long to humans.

From the usage, it is clear that the days are from the perspective of a point on the earth's surface, 24 hour days.

So the entire universe was created in six days from the perspective of the earth.

White-hole cosmology proposes Gravitational Time Dilation to explain the difference in the passage of time between the earth and the edge of the universe, and allows for the billions of years for electromagnetic radiation to reach us from the outer reaches.

It is a very interesting theory, which as far as I know, has withstood numerous attacks, from both within and without the creationist scientific community.

I attended a seminar on why evolution is wrong....I'll have to dig up my notes if I still havem' (It was free, required, and I slept)

I've been to one of those. It repeatedly offered examples of things that aren't explained by evolution. It didn't actually refute evolution - it just pointed out holes in it.

Which is like saying that calculus can't predict the existence of peach cobbler, so calculus must be wrong.

I've been to one of those. It repeatedly offered examples of things that aren't explained by evolution. It didn't actually refute evolution - it just pointed out holes in it.

Which is like saying that calculus can't predict the existence of peach cobbler, so calculus must be wrong.
You opened my eyes. Fuck calculus. Yay Peach Cobbler!

Someone's probably made this commment already, but I'm just a big fan of the completely misspelled thread title. Managing to misspell both creationism and evolution in one go is quite nice. ;)
So am I. Whenever I see a misspelled title, I jump into the discussion. I'm bound to register a couple of sins, you see, for my little red book.

How I love watching them point a finger... :upyours:

Creatation!

I mean, that's just a damn awesome word. Creatation! If they called it that, I'd probably switch sides.

I do believe fervantly in god. However, I do not think that god spends all the time interfering with life. I think god made the laws that govern the way the universe works. Maybe this sounds crazy.

I think god simply made things work in the way that they do so that life would simply develop and change on its own course (evolution). I think if god had designed us from the beginning, there are a vast number of conspicuous engineering flaws that would not be present. Probably sounds weird, but whatever.

Naturally, I completely dismiss the Christian Fundamentalist idea of god.

Cool. I can deal with deists. You tend to be massively more rational and openminded than theists.

Evolution. Teaching Creation or any of its offshoots is against the constitution and against the my right to freedom of religion.

White-hole cosmology proposes Gravitational Time Dilation to explain the difference in the passage of time between the earth and the edge of the universe,

That's not really a valid argument. Any difference at all between the relative rate of time passage at the universal light cone's origin point and the expanding wavefront of its formation requires that it be expanding or spreading outwards from a single point - a.k.a., requires the Big Bang. This doesn't fly with creationism.

That aside, it still doesn't really follow. If God is the creator, than he created things from where they were created. If He engineered the early universe to expand to its present configuration, that means it expanded from a small central region or point, the point of creation. It follows that the creator performed creation at that point, which means there would be no time dilation. Not to mention that, in any case, the time dilation would be insignificant, definitely not even close to enough to perform the process of the evolution of a) the universe and b) life in 7 terrestrial-equivalent days. That would require dipping through the event horizon of a supermassive black hole to get that kind of gravitational time dilation.

Also, the basic geometry doesn't work. A massive object or region (such as a hypothetical early central universe) has a radial gravitational effect. Get close enough, and assuming the object or region you're approaching is massive enough you'll experience some meaningful degree of time dilation. Effectively, this means there is a spherical zone within within which meaningful time dilation due to gravity occurs. Within this zone, time passes substantially more relatively slowly than time outside the zone. Presumably, this means that 7 terrestrial days for God inside such a zone equated to billions of years outside, which I presume is the basis for your theory.

This is really a logical self-contradiction. If there is such a massive region, than that means the universe must have begun within that region and expanded out of it. Yet for the theory to work as apparently meant, the universe must be outside the region and God within it. So it's like broken-circle logic. Lol.

and allows for the billions of years for electromagnetic radiation to reach us from the outer reaches.

...which is where you're saying God is? Whether or not he is, how is this relevant? If creation occurred, it was instantaneous. The entirety of the universe is fully contained within the light cone of its own origin. It follows directly from the definition. There is no absolute causal or temporally dilatory effect from the transmission time of light. How can there be? Really, I don't see your point here at all.

I never said that it disproved a superior being's involvement. I just don't see how evolution agrees with most of the prevalent-in-Western-society creation stories (which are what seem to be in question here) unless you have an open mind, which most fundamentalists do not, by their very nature.never pointed to you or to anyone specific. There are those that are so Science oriented (btw not pointing at you.) or Thiest-phobic that they are like Fundies... [Sci-fundies?] there are fanatics on both sides. the thing is not to judge the whole by those loud few.

never pointed to you or to anyone specific. There are those that are so Science oriented (btw not pointing at you.) or Thiest-phobic that they are like Fundies... [Sci-fundies?] there are fanatics on both sides. the thing is not to judge the whole by those loud few.

You can't be "scientifically fundamentalist". It's an oxymoron. You can believe from an empirical or axiomatic standpoint in a perfectly rational universe, in which case science is the only method of gaining maximally objective truth about the universe. Within science itself, though, it isn't possible to be an extremist, to have an orthodoxy, etc. etc. There are no shared traits. The entire basis and point of scientific innovation is in large part to supersede the limitations of previous theories. Fundamentalists believe without reason; not having a reason to believe is a central tenet, often called "faith". They require no reasons. They don't change, they don't interpret, they don't doubt or question. That's what it means to be a fundamentalist, and is the precise and diametric opposite of what it means to be a scientist.

You can't be "scientifically fundamentalist". It's an oxymoron. You can believe from an empirical or axiomatic standpoint in a perfectly rational universe, in which case science is the only method of gaining maximally objective truth about the universe. Within science itself, though, it isn't possible to be an extremist, to have an orthodoxy, etc. etc. There are no shared traits. The entire basis and point of scientific innovation is in large part to supersede the limitations of previous theories. Fundamentalists believe without reason; not having a reason to believe is a central tenet, often called "faith". They require no reasons. They don't change, they don't interpret, they don't doubt or question. That's what it means to be a fundamentalist, and is the precise and diametric opposite of what it means to be a scientist.
and you have those that won't beileve anything unless it's been proven by experts they trust and only after it was put under a barrage of tests that they hold to be true.

they hold science as the end all be all and if it cannot be explained by science then it was faked or not true.

by the way, Military Intelligence is an oxymoron and it does exsist. so is Common Sense.

and you have those that won't beileve anything unless it's been proven by experts they trust and only after it was put under a barrage of tests that they hold to be true.

Well... "anything" is a bit exaggerated - one needs time to have a life after all.
But yes, if a stranger in a pub tells me something pretty unbelieveable that contradicts my own experiences and ideas, I will require some evidence before radically changing my outlook. Silly me.

they hold science as the end all be all and if it cannot be explained by science then it was faked or not true

Those people do indeed exist. Most however just want creationists to stop pretending that their claims are supported by anything but Faith. In my book that does not mean the creationist beliefs are "faked" or "not true" - just that the claims they use to support them are.

They are teaching Creationism in science classes, especially biology.

Not at my school. They just teach evolution.

I think its silly when people say they can't even learn about evolution because it's against their religion (especially if they're Catholic), when more than one pope has said that evolution needn't conflict with religion, and that belief in evolution or against evolution should be because of scientific evidence, not religious beliefs.
I also think it's kind of silly when creationism is taught in science classes. It's religion, not science.

and you have those that won't beileve anything unless it's been proven by experts they trust and only after it was put under a barrage of tests that they hold to be true.

To the non-scientist, or the scientist-of-another-discipline, that's to some degree how you have to judge. If the scientific method and the peer review process are successful, this should not be a problem. Why should you believe anything that's unproven? I don't believe in Bigfoot. Why? Because it's never had any evidence scientifically proven beyond reasonable doubt that it exists. Not asking something to be proven before you're prepared to believe in it is utterly irrational, and in no instance any better than the 'faith' of religious types.

Now, this is completely separate from those who judge whether they believe something based on who tells them it's true. You trust scientists because of the processes of the scientific method and peer review. You don't trust people. You don't accept anything because a 'trusted figure', whether it be a leader or an expert, tells you it is so. You listen to their reasoning, and if it makes sense, run with it. If the ideas behind the idea are beyond what you're capable of understanding, than you trust the integrity of peer review, and the power of the scientific method.

If something fits into what you already know, or you can reason it out yourself, you accept it. Otherwise, you ask someone for their reasoning, and if necessary their proof.

they hold science as the end all be all and if it cannot be explained by science then it was faked or not true.

Of course they do. What this means is that they consider reason to be the "be-all end-all" of existence - they consider the universe to be, looked at sufficiently deeply, always a perfectly rational place.

by the way, Military Intelligence is an oxymoron and it does exsist. so is Common Sense.

The relevance of your random poor jokes in the face of semantically related but actually serious conversation astounds me....

Wait... aren't bacteria a higher being?

Yes they are, which is why fundamentalist Christians came up with anti-bacterial soap. Cuz cleanliness is next to godliness.
Or something.

And why is this the diameter? Could it not be measuring the curve? My math abilities are extremely lacking.
Because thirty cubic "Curve" makes no real sense ... and if you streach it to make any sense the math is even FARTHER off

The same dating labeled a living butterfly as 16,00 years old. I think that's very reliable.

Also, everyone forgets about the flood. All that water would probably produce enough weight to create "fossils." Look at the petrified forest. The same thing happened to the trees at Mt. St. Helen's eruption. Now if there were billions, upon billions, upon billions.... of agllons of water on top, don't you think the pressure, might speed the fossilization process up a bit?
Lol NO ... a flood causes a compleatly different sort of reaction

(and you may want to note that a flood will cause a LOT of other evidence, none of which has ever been found)

Lol NO ... a flood causes a compleatly different sort of reaction

(and you may want to note that a flood will cause a LOT of other evidence, none of which has ever been found)
interesting to note tho. that the story of a "Great Flood sweeping their world" appears in many texts and folklore. Even those that had no contact with Christianity.

interesting to note tho. that the story of a "Great Flood sweeping their world" appears in many texts and folklore. Even those that had no contact with Christianity.
It is intresting ... but a lot of them record it at some very different times, and from all gelogic evidence any flooding that did happen in thoes areas (and many of them did flood large areas for various parts of time) dont match up to one BIG flood

interesting to note tho. that the story of a "Great Flood sweeping their world" appears in many texts and folklore. Even those that had no contact with Christianity.

Yeah, and there's also Earth Mothers, Sky Fathers throughout many religions as well. Doesn't really give credibility to the lightning bolts.

interesting to note tho. that the story of a "Great Flood sweeping their world" appears in many texts and folklore. Even those that had no contact with Christianity.

Curious number of magic swords, and sacred cups, also.

And fairies. Pretty much EVERY cultural group has it's own 'fairy' stories.

And ghosts.

Vampires are quite popular, too.


You are (appear to be) mistaking 'similar symbolic value' with 'historical accounts of a world-wide event'

Curious number of magic swords, and sacred cups, also.name em. other than the Holy Grail and Excalibur what other magic swords and Sacred cups exsist and do those stories have a remarkable number of similarities to them other than that of a Magic Sword or Sacred Cup?

And fairies. Pretty much EVERY cultural group has it's own 'fairy' stories.

And ghosts.

Vampires are quite popular, too.true, never denied that. but if you look at each regional story, there are more differences than similarites. the "Vampires" like Dracula are far different than the blood suckers of Japanese/Chinese mythology. Ghosts act and react differently depending on the nationality of the story.

but the tales of the great flood is always similar. A small group of people get a warning from supernatural/divine means and flee/make preperations accroding to instructions. the flood occurs and those who fled/followed the instructions survive. Then there is miracle at the end.

You are (appear to be) mistaking 'similar symbolic value' with 'historical accounts of a world-wide event'no I was not, I was just making an observation that such a thing exsisted. I have not disputed nor refuted Upwardthrusts reply because he is also right. Mythology was a hobby of mine, and I don't recall any myth similar to Excalibur or the Holy Grail (outside of Tomb Raider:Legends that is.) that matches so well.

Yeah, and there's also Earth Mothers, Sky Fathers throughout many religions as well. Doesn't really give credibility to the lightning bolts.
yep... and those tend to fall into the Religion catagory. The Gaia figure. the Patheon of Gods where there is a "Father" and/or "Mother" Divine figure. "Mother Nature" and even "Father Time" can be included.

same with the story of Santa Claus Icon. I believe the Norsemen had a similar figure way before the "Night Before Christmas" story.

So the bible's literal, but inaccurate. Nice.

That'd be a hoot if 'Jesus' was nothing more that a misspelling of 'Jews'.

That'd be a hoot if 'Jesus' was nothing more that a misspelling of 'Jews'.

Probably the worst spelling mistake in the world, heh.

That'd be a hoot if 'Jesus' was nothing more that a misspelling of 'Jews'.

iudeus vs Iēsus...
It is possible ;)

interesting to note tho. that the story of a "Great Flood sweeping their world" appears in many texts and folklore. Even those that had no contact with Christianity.

It's interesting to note that the first civilisations grew up on fertile flood plains. The Tigris, the Nile etc.

It is intresting ... but a lot of them record it at some very different times, and from all gelogic evidence any flooding that did happen in thoes areas (and many of them did flood large areas for various parts of time) dont match up to one BIG flood

Interesting, yeah, if you conveniently forget the fact that the world's earliest civilizations, and the roots of its major religions and cultures, all originally appeared in an area surrounded by multiple rivers that flood their banks massively on a yearly basis.

A supreme being created a dense ball of matter, weighing about 10^10^42 tons, then let it explode (The big bang.) Since then, the universe has been doing its own thing, and this supreme being has just been watching us. He/she/it is basically watching the ultimate reality tv show: reality itself.

name em. other than the Holy Grail and Excalibur what other magic swords and Sacred cups exsist and do those stories have a remarkable number of similarities to them other than that of a Magic Sword or Sacred Cup?


Magic Swords: (symbolically, one of the two masculine aspects - the other is the spear.)

Freyr has a 'self-swinging sword';
Tyrfing was a magic sword that never rusts and 'cannot miss';
Dainsleif was a sword that caused wounds that would not heal;
Mistelltain was a sword which could never be blunted;
Lu Tung-Pin carried a magic sword that could slay dragons;
Kasunagi was a magic sword in Japanese mythology;

(Kasunagi, Dainsleif and Tyrfing - along with all mundane katana - could not be drawn without drawing blood... at least 'symbolically')

Theseus had a magic sword given to him by Ariadne;
Durendal was indestructible;
Charlemagne had a magic sword (Joyeuse)

All iron weapons are considered 'magical' when fighting faery folk, since the 'blood metal' is fatal to them.

Similarly, silver weapons for lycanthropes.

The Sword of Nuada was the Tuatha de Danaan magic sword from which no foe could ever escape.

Gram was the 'dragon-slayer' sword Volund forged, which Sigmund gave to Odin.

Gram also appears under the name 'Balmung', as a sword stuck in a tree (or log) by Odin, where only he could draw it again... arguably the basis for the Excalibur myth, Balmung proved the weilder was a god, not a mere king.

Sacred Cup: (symbolically, one of the two feminine aspects - the other is the throne)

The Cauldron of the Dagda - which gave out food according to a man's merit;
Bran's 'cauldron of rebirth';
The Healing Cauldron of Goibniu;
In some Celtic traditions, the Ruler of the Underworld had an inexhaustible cauldron;
Cúchulain and Cú Roí stole a magical cauldron;
Ceridwen had a magical cauldron;
Cernunnos was reborn after being torn apart and boiled in a magic cauldron;
Siris made an immortality elixir in a 'magic cauldron';
Odin gained his wisdom drinking 'magical blood' from a magical cauldron;
Medea had a 'healing' or 'immortality' cauldron;
Hymir had a cauldron a mile-deep, in which the gods brewed an eternal supply of ale.

(In fairy lore, the Leprachauns have an unlimited supply of gold stored in their magical cauldrons)

The Finnish 'sampo' and the cornucopia are also examples of the secred feminine as a 'magical container'.

Thinking about it - didn't both Beowulf and Achilles gain their 'powers' from a cauldron...?


true, never denied that. but if you look at each regional story, there are more differences than similarites. the "Vampires" like Dracula are far different than the blood suckers of Japanese/Chinese mythology. Ghosts act and react differently depending on the nationality of the story.


It depends how superficial you wish to be. If you look at the fact that, for example - Christian mythology REQUIRES the body to decay to free the spirit, while Egyptian mythology REQUIRED the body to remain intact... then the stories (spearated by 2000 years) of vampires are remarkably similar - where each is a 'perversion'... the Christian Vampire does not decay, the Egyptian vampire has no body.

Indeed - our modern 'Dracula' is much CLOSER to the ancient or oriental vampires in many ways, than he would be to his geographical counterparts... the Romanian vampire chews his shroud, cannot leave dropped grains uncounted, cannot leave a net knotted, etc... notably, (modern storytelling and movie-making almost totally ignores those aspects).


but the tales of the great flood is always similar. A small group of people get a warning from supernatural/divine means and flee/make preperations accroding to instructions. the flood occurs and those who fled/followed the instructions survive. Then there is miracle at the end.


And yet, there are still differences, are there not?

In the Sumerian story, it is Enki who secretly betrays the other gods by warning humans of the flood;
In the Akakdian story, humans are deluged for being too numerous, not for any sin;

The Greeks record two 'floods' - one which covered the world, and killed everyone (in Thebes, at least) - and the Deucalion legend Prometheus warns his son to escape, but others are saved, who manage to flee to the mountains.

In the Norse versions - it is the ice giants who are 'punished' in a flood, when Odin and his gods kill the grandfather giant, and the world is flooded with his blood. Only two ice giants survive.

(It is worth noting that Beowulf also echoes this story element...)

The Aztec stories have a flood, or NO flood, depending on how they are translated. There is no conclusive evidence either way... but the Inca has a flood where (like the Norse) the giants are killed. In the Inca version, two people survive in a cave.

The Mayans had a flood story, but it was an inferior 'race' of people that were killed (made of wood), and 'real' people didn't arrive until AFTER the flood.

To the Hopi, it was not a 'god', but a 'spirit' (Spider Woman) who 'saved' her people, by telling them to climb into giant reeds. In the Cado version, one family climbs inside a giant reed while the land is flooded to kill giant monsters... in fact, it is tnot the flood, but a giant turtle IN the flood that kills them).

The Chinese ShuJing tells of great floods, but appears to be references to the miracles of drainage and irrigation.

The Indonesian 'flood' story has the world falling off the back of a giant serpent - the human race is only 'saved' because Batar-Guru makes a mountain for his daughter to climb.

There are a number of flood myths... because civilisations tend to grow by bodies of water. That doesn't mean all these 'big floods' are the same flood.


no I was not, I was just making an observation that such a thing exsisted. I have not disputed nor refuted Upwardthrusts reply because he is also right. Mythology was a hobby of mine, and I don't recall any myth similar to Excalibur or the Holy Grail (outside of Tomb Raider:Legends that is.) that matches so well.

Mythology is also a hobby of mine. :)

I understand that this isn't the mainline view, but why can't you have both. God created the earth, and created conditions to make life, and evolution took it from there. Ideas?

Magic Swords: (symbolically, one of the two masculine aspects - the other is the spear.)

Freyr has a 'self-swinging sword';
Tyrfing was a magic sword that never rusts and 'cannot miss';
Dainsleif was a sword that caused wounds that would not heal;
Mistelltain was a sword which could never be blunted;
Lu Tung-Pin carried a magic sword that could slay dragons;
Kasunagi was a magic sword in Japanese mythology;

(Kasunagi, Dainsleif and Tyrfing - along with all mundane katana - could not be drawn without drawing blood... at least 'symbolically')

Theseus had a magic sword given to him by Ariadne;
Durendal was indestructible;
Charlemagne had a magic sword (Joyeuse)

All iron weapons are considered 'magical' when fighting faery folk, since the 'blood metal' is fatal to them.

Similarly, silver weapons for lycanthropes.

The Sword of Nuada was the Tuatha de Danaan magic sword from which no foe could ever escape.

Gram was the 'dragon-slayer' sword Volund forged, which Sigmund gave to Odin.

Gram also appears under the name 'Balmung', as a sword stuck in a tree (or log) by Odin, where only he could draw it again... arguably the basis for the Excalibur myth, Balmung proved the weilder was a god, not a mere king.

Sacred Cup: (symbolically, one of the two feminine aspects - the other is the throne)

The Cauldron of the Dagda - which gave out food according to a man's merit;
Bran's 'cauldron of rebirth';
The Healing Cauldron of Goibniu;
In some Celtic traditions, the Ruler of the Underworld had an inexhaustible cauldron;
Cúchulain and Cú Roí stole a magical cauldron;
Ceridwen had a magical cauldron;
Cernunnos was reborn after being torn apart and boiled in a magic cauldron;
Siris made an immortality elixir in a 'magic cauldron';
Odin gained his wisdom drinking 'magical blood' from a magical cauldron;
Medea had a 'healing' or 'immortality' cauldron;
Hymir had a cauldron a mile-deep, in which the gods brewed an eternal supply of ale.

(In fairy lore, the Leprachauns have an unlimited supply of gold stored in their magical cauldrons)

The Finnish 'sampo' and the cornucopia are also examples of the secred feminine as a 'magical container'.

Thinking about it - didn't both Beowulf and Achilles gain their 'powers' from a cauldron...?

now, How many of them share the same elements as Aurthurian Legend/myth? A question I also asked for there are elements in other "great FLood myths that share similar points.

It depends how superficial you wish to be. If you look at the fact that, for example - Christian mythology REQUIRES the body to decay to free the spirit, while Egyptian mythology REQUIRED the body to remain intact... then the stories (spearated by 2000 years) of vampires are remarkably similar - where each is a 'perversion'... the Christian Vampire does not decay, the Egyptian vampire has no body.

Indeed - our modern 'Dracula' is much CLOSER to the ancient or oriental vampires in many ways, than he would be to his geographical counterparts... the Romanian vampire chews his shroud, cannot leave dropped grains uncounted, cannot leave a net knotted, etc... notably, (modern storytelling and movie-making almost totally ignores those aspects).but again, more differences then similarities.

And yet, there are still differences, are there not?

In the Sumerian story, it is Enki who secretly betrays the other gods by warning humans of the flood;
In the Akakdian story, humans are deluged for being too numerous, not for any sin;

The Greeks record two 'floods' - one which covered the world, and killed everyone (in Thebes, at least) - and the Deucalion legend Prometheus warns his son to escape, but others are saved, who manage to flee to the mountains.

In the Norse versions - it is the ice giants who are 'punished' in a flood, when Odin and his gods kill the grandfather giant, and the world is flooded with his blood. Only two ice giants survive.

(It is worth noting that Beowulf also echoes this story element...)

The Aztec stories have a flood, or NO flood, depending on how they are translated. There is no conclusive evidence either way... but the Inca has a flood where (like the Norse) the giants are killed. In the Inca version, two people survive in a cave.

The Mayans had a flood story, but it was an inferior 'race' of people that were killed (made of wood), and 'real' people didn't arrive until AFTER the flood.

To the Hopi, it was not a 'god', but a 'spirit' (Spider Woman) who 'saved' her people, by telling them to climb into giant reeds. In the Cado version, one family climbs inside a giant reed while the land is flooded to kill giant monsters... in fact, it is tnot the flood, but a giant turtle IN the flood that kills them).

The Chinese ShuJing tells of great floods, but appears to be references to the miracles of drainage and irrigation.

The Indonesian 'flood' story has the world falling off the back of a giant serpent - the human race is only 'saved' because Batar-Guru makes a mountain for his daughter to climb.

There are a number of flood myths... because civilisations tend to grow by bodies of water. That doesn't mean all these 'big floods' are the same flood.
similar to God warning Noah, the High Shaman reading the portents in the moon, (American Indian I believe), the White Woman warning a Hawaiian tribe on Maui of an impending flood. NOT SAYING THAT THE NOAH FLOOD IS FACT, but isn't amazing that the flood myths are more numerous and only the small details are different than any story concerning swords and cups. the Myths concerning swords and... containers will say to include the chalice as well as caldrons. have more differences than similarities.
Mythology is also a hobby of mine. :) they are fun to read. :D

I understand that this isn't the mainline view, but why can't you have both. God created the earth, and created conditions to make life, and evolution took it from there. Ideas?dunno. that's my viewpoint on it.

I understand that this isn't the mainline view, but why can't you have both. God created the earth, and created conditions to make life, and evolution took it from there. Ideas?

Because it's cerebral cowardice. Why do you need to tack on 'God' to evolution? To satisfy some sort of religious comfort requirement? "Yeah, I believe in evolution, but God's real too. Yay, I'm the most perfectly PC-lefty-enlightened!" It's bullshit. Believe in God if there is evidence or logic his existence is required to explain or satisfy. Otherwise it's compromise for the sake of compromise, because you lack the intellectual courage, integrity, and self-confidence to take the facts as far as they'll go and unequivocally choose a position. Saying that you'll analyze the evidence far enough to accept evolution, but will voluntarily stop short of fully analyzing it and applying empirical logic to your whole worldview is just the mark of an intellectual craven.

I don't know any theologian who has said that.

I've seen it mentioned quite often - and was a major discussion in my Old Testament class.

The OT is thought to have no less that two authors - the Priestly and the Yahwist. The Priestly is thought to have a been a priest or group of priests - most of the legal sections of the OT, as well as the more majestic Creation story, are thought to come from this author. The Yahwist is thought to have recorded many of the oral traditions - and is more of a storyteller.

I know many Bible-bashers who support that theory, though.

Is anyone who disagrees with your view a "Bible-basher"?

Plants were created on the third (?) day and animals on the fifth and sixth days. Man was created after the animals on the sixth day according to both accounts.

Really?


In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; 6but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground— 7then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.

But wait!

9 And God said, ‘Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.’ And it was so. 10God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. 11Then God said, ‘Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.’ And it was so. 12The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good. 13And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

According to this, plants were created on the 3rd day - well before humankind!

According to Genesis 2, God created man before plants.

18 Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.’ 19So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner.

The language here clearly implies that the animals were not made before man, but were made at the time in which God decided that Adam needed a helper. But, no helper was found among them, so God moved on to woman.

I would say it sucks also. because in Truth, Evolution does not disprove the idea of a superior being starting the process.

Of course it doesn't. Evolutionary theory cannot disprove the idea that God personally causes every single mutation either. God isn't brought into it at all.

yet those who hold their belief in Evolution assumes and will argue that it does. thus proving that Evolutionists and Creationists share the same size mind.

Those who place "belief" in science, beyond the belief that it is a good method of obtaining knowledge, are already doing it wrong.

A supreme being created a dense ball of matter, weighing about 10^10^42 tons, then let it explode (The big bang.) Since then, the universe has been doing its own thing, and this supreme being has just been watching us. He/she/it is basically watching the ultimate reality tv show: reality itself.

I totally agree with this. I just believe God "created" the Universe via the Big Bang, which started several chain reactions resulting in planetary bodies etc as well as life which has "evolved" over time on Earth and perhaps other planets. Adam and Eve story isn't true, which my own church can concede. Noah's flood also highly dubious. God sent Jesus to check up on us, and he's just been letting Humanity decide it's own course since then.

By basis for actually taking a compromise here is that whilst evolution is obviously the way life has progressed, some force has to have started it all. And until science can prove otherwise, it could well have been a supreme being.

Because it's cerebral cowardice. Why do you need to tack on 'God' to evolution? To satisfy some sort of religious comfort requirement? "Yeah, I believe in evolution, but God's real too. Yay, I'm the most perfectly PC-lefty-enlightened!" It's bullshit. Believe in God if there is evidence or logic his existence is required to explain or satisfy. Otherwise it's compromise for the sake of compromise, because you lack the intellectual courage, integrity, and self-confidence to take the facts as far as they'll go and unequivocally choose a position. Saying that you'll analyze the evidence far enough to accept evolution, but will voluntarily stop short of fully analyzing it and applying empirical logic to your whole worldview is just the mark of an intellectual craven.
I'm going to answer this point by point if that's alright with you.
First of all, calm the fuck down. I don't need to do anything, but this is the way that I think things went down, I'm sorry that you disagree with me, but you don't have to :mp5: me right out of the box.

My belief doesn't require evidence, that's why it's belief, and attacking if just for the sake of attacking it isn't needed. If you have a problem with my idea, that's fine, but making it personal doesn't make sense.

And lastly, what empirical logic are you speaking? As you have stated, I do accept evolution as a viable theory for how the world came to be the way it is, but I really don't see why that should exclude a higher power from the equation. I would be willing to discuss this with you, but not if you're just going to explode and make personal attacks at the first sign of an idea which is opposite your own beliefs.

A supreme being created a dense ball of matter, weighing about 10^10^42 tons, then let it explode (The big bang.) Since then, the universe has been doing its own thing, and this supreme being has just been watching us. He/she/it is basically watching the ultimate reality tv show: reality itself.Some people suggest that the in the Creation Event, all of pre-Creation history was fabricated (includes all the fossils from beforehand and photons drifting towards Earth from suns The Creator probably didn't even have create because they were 'already gone Nova' at the time of creation, the light from that event being put in place to arrive in a few more thousand years yet, etc...

However, to do all that, The Creator must have had in mind the manner by which the whole (pre-Creation) universe behaved, to then lay out all the various 'relics' of the false past.

So he must have done a mental simulation of it, to get the details right.

I give to you (again, because I've done it before) The Church Of Next-Tuesday.

Next-Tuesdayism is the belief that goes beyond the hypothetical Last-Tuesdayism belief that the world was created only last Tuesday, and that when we woke up we had been given all memories of what had happened before, were able to interact with the things 'we' had put on the bedside tables the night before (in reality, Divinely created in that position, like everything, even such things as the dust on top of the TV, never mind the TV itself).

Next-Tuesdayism is the belief that we are all just the 'thought processes' of The Creator, the mental simulation, that He is still formulating the details of the Universe in order that Next Tuesday it shall come to pass that He creates the world in the image of His imaginings, and thus create a truly "Young Earth-Looking-Old" on which are (mostly) unknowing people who (mostly) believe that Monday was real.

Remember! Next Tuesday is coming! Coming soon!

"Next Tuesday" is not necessarily the next Tuesday. "Next Tuesday" may not even be a Tuesday, and may not even be within the next (imagined) calendar week. If you die before Next Tuesday, only your decomposing remains, mmmified corpse, interred or entombed bones or scattered ashes will be created. Your home is at risk if you do not keep up repayments. Smoking while pregnant may cause fetal deformaties. Smoking while looking for a gas leak may result in a Darwin Award. One swallow does not a summer make, nor iron bars a cage. Just because I'm paranoid, it doesn't mean They are not watching me.

I am not an American, so please forgive me, but is it true that some schools now are teaching Creationism instead of Biology? Because if so that is really rather more stupid than I thought possible of a supposedly rational country. By all means teach R.E. but Biology is an essential part of the school curriculum, and should be taught irrespective of religious views. Bearing in mind that evolution is still classed as a theory.

Kansas has redefined science so that they can include Intelligent Design (Creationism-lite) in biology courses alongside evolutionary theory. Most of the other places that have tried it have been sued and their attempt to inject religion into biology has been struck down.

You can't be "scientifically fundamentalist". *snip*

What you say here is correct. However, I think the poster you were replying to might have been referring to those people who actually do take the proposals of science on faith - those who do not look at the evidence for themselves, and instead believe anything they are told "science" has demonstrated - often just as strongly as fundamentalist religious people hold to their own ideas.

I've seen more than one person on this board claim that the theories held by science are absolute fact - proven completely, even though such a claim goes against the very fundamentals of the logic behind science.

Because it's cerebral cowardice.

Yes, any belief in a Creator is cowardice.

Do you always feel the need to insult anyone who disagrees with you?

Believe in God if there is evidence or logic his existence is required to explain or satisfy.

If empirical evidence is the only type you will accept, is that not your own philosophical viewpoint? Those of us who accept our own personal experience as evidence are, what? Cowards?

Otherwise it's compromise for the sake of compromise, because you lack the intellectual courage, integrity, and self-confidence to take the facts as far as they'll go and unequivocally choose a position.

How is "God created things in such a way that human beings would evolve," not a position? Is it just because you say that the two must be opposed?

Saying that you'll analyze the evidence far enough to accept evolution, but will voluntarily stop short of fully analyzing it and applying empirical logic to your whole worldview is just the mark of an intellectual craven.

So, because you have personally chosen to accept nothing but the empirical, anyone who disagrees with that philosophical viewpoint is worthy of your scorn? If so, you are no better than a religious fundamentalist.

Liasia']I was under the impression that creationsists take everything the bible says literally. Evolution didn't happen in six days, and couldn't have developed over 6000 years- so Creationism =/= evolution any way you look at it.

That is not really true, actually there are creationists who have no problem with the age of the earth. They just believe, that you cannot take the 6 days literal. However, there are also ID people Intelligent Design people who do not necessarily believe in the Bible.

I'm of mixed opinions. I believe that God created this world and then created the laws that govern nature.