Creatiolutionism? God's time-table, Part I

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by scokes, Aug 3, 2009.

?

God's time-table for creation?

Poll closed Oct 2, 2009.
  1. 168 hours (7 days) exactly.

    1 vote(s)
    33.3%
  2. Over an extended period of time.

    1 vote(s)
    33.3%
  3. Hopefully, he hasn't finished yet and this is just the beginning!

    1 vote(s)
    33.3%
  1. scokes

    scokes Member

    So I was sitting at my mother's house over the weekend and on her coffee table was a booklet for "The Creation Museum". Two pages into it and I had to put it down. I am astonished at how closed-mided people can be and I wanted to know everyone's thoughts on the subject.

    Point one (that I read in the book): God created dinosaurs and man on the sixth day..
    Now, I was raised in church and have never heard this before. I have my oldest daughter in a private religious school and was appalled to find that this "suggestion" was in her Science book. They actually believe that not only did the dinos and humans walk side by side, but that the world, our beautiful Earth, was created a mere 10,000 years ago. I ask you this, if this is true, then what of the massive collection of scientific proof? Why are there no human fossils in the tar pits lying next to our dino counterparts or for that matter, inside them? Because we just weren't here yet...

    Point two: Natural selection is not evolution.
    I laugh at this because as stated above, the same people who beleive in an adolescent Earth, believe that in the course of 10,000 years that natural selection can take a normal everyday lizard, who accidentally found it's way into a cave one day, decided that it was no longer necessary to use it's eyes, so it just quit growing them.

    I am what I call a creatiolutionist. I feel that God, in his own time, not the literal 7, 24 hour days, created the world as we know it. Perhaps his "one day" was the equivalent to our one million years and that the process of creation took place over billions of years. I'm not saying that God did not have an end result in mind, after all, he/she is God.

    Outside of my own learnings in church, I have studied other cultures and found that many of the Bible's stories have been plagiarisms from other religions. Example, the flood mentioned in the Epic of Atrahasis (Sumerian) circa 17th century BC or the Epic of Gilgamesh (Bablyonian) basically copied word for word of the above Sumerian version. Not to mention the many, many other versions. The same goes with Creation and Christ... Multiple accounts throughout history, most predating the Bible's.

    Anyways, the CC was started as a no-nonsense place for all types of debates/discussions and I noticed there were no religious threads started yet. I guess I just felt like throwing the first stone. Let's get this thing rolling. I know that some of you guys are stuck here in the "Bible-Belt" with me so this can get touchy. At least that's what I want to see. :devilish:
     

  2. give me vtec

    give me vtec Active Member

    I believe GOD created the earth in 7 days. Now, how long are those days? Are they seven days to GOD... or seven days to us? Who is to say our perception of time is the same.

    I have also heard that some say the Earth is 10000 years old. Who can be sure 100%? None of us were there so nobody really knows. I have been through all the collage level biology and earth science classes as well as college level Christianity classes so I have heard the argument from both sides. I have also been raised in the Church so I have heard that side of the argument too.

    Here is what I think... science constantly "changes" what they believe as true. 500 years ago, ALL the scientists believed the Earth was flat. 100 years ago ALL scientists believed we came from apes. 30 years ago scientists though that we were in a dangerous cooling state and headed towards another ice age. 2 years ago we were in a dangerous warming trend and headed towards global warming... how much do you hear of any of these "theories" now. They went from "hole in the ozone" to "global Warming" to "climate change" to "carbon footprint". Its all B u l l s h i t.

    My point is that people think the hard sciences are infallible 100% of the time and the truth is that they are not. Science is indeed susceptible to human error and flaw. It is not 100% correct 100% of the time.... so who is to say they are correct 100% about evolutionism? They come out with theories and say "this is how it is without doubt and anybody that believes otherwise is ignorant"... then they come out a few years later and say "well we were wrong about that, but we are absolutely certain about this".

    Here is what I know... they are yet to prove anything in the Bible wrong. In fact "science" is proving the Bible correct as time goes on. So if you follow the two paths I think that science will eventually prove everything in the Bible correct.
     
  3. give me vtec

    give me vtec Active Member

    As far as evolution is concerned... I don't believe that everything evolved from a single cell, or macro evolution. It is beyond my intelligence to believe a cell decided one day it needed an eye so it evolved one. However, I also don't believe that GOD would create something without the necessary tools for survival. Through their research with fruit flies they have proof that an animal can develop stripes or longer legs or something like that after thousands of generations (micro evolution). However they do not have proof that a species can "evolve" into an entirely different species.
     
  4. kerf

    kerf Guest

    What you've discovered isn't a new phenomenon at all. Every day, people look at the same thing and somebody's going to get it totally wrong. I'm a Bible belt Christian and I find Darwinism very plausible, maybe it's all wrong in the end but I've seen no evidence of that so far. As its been stated here Genesis doesn't define a day as 24 hours, who knows what a day was, it seems to describe a process acting over time. Science describes what appears to be a process over time, where's the rub. Literal Creationist can no more prove their contentions than Atheist and prove God doesn't exist. The Book brings me much comfort and understanding of life, my beliefs are my own and they're what I'm comfortable with, what others believe matters not, unless they intend to push it into my world.

    Trust me when I say, there are far more dangerous beliefs out there than the Creationist, you can just ignore them. The ones you can't ignore are those with wrong ideas and the power to implement them.
     
  5. give me vtec

    give me vtec Active Member

    The rub is that these people are trying to argue GOD doesn't exist and that he didn't create the Earth. They argue there is no creator and that the Earth was created by a "Big Bang". I am going to stick to the Bible... other than comfort it also offers me truth.
     
  6. give me vtec

    give me vtec Active Member

    That is the problem... they wish to push these ideas on everybody including you and your children. Just like they want to push "transgenderism" and "global Warming" on you and your children. That is the problem with everything right now. The crazies have gotten into power and they wish to push all of their crazy ideas on all of us through legislation.
     
  7. kerf

    kerf Guest

    You've got the right idea but you quoted the wrong part of my post!


     
  8. scokes

    scokes Member

    I agree whole heartedly in the fact that science is constantly proving the stories portrayed in the Bible correct. But what they are not proving is this, Do the facts belong solely to the Christian Bible or to the other religions whose stories were passed down from generation to generation long before Christianity or the Bible? I feel like the Bible was nothing more than a collaboration of these hand-me-down stories, but told in a way that the people in that time could understand. We are constantly "re-writing" the Bible to be understood by the everyday average non-scholar. for instance the NIV and NRIV (which I just learned about yesterday)

    Example:
    Deuteronomy 4:2 "You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take anything from it"
    But yet not only have we deleted words, but entire books, because the "Church" at the time of revising, decided not incorporate certain books. (I'm speaking of King James Version which I feel was poorly trnaslated from the original texts)

    How can a person truly understand God's creation if the book that we base our beliefs on has been purposefully and carefully adapted to omit certain people and stories. i.e. Lilith

    Talk about "pushing their crazy ideas on me and you"

    I do have people who try to push their beliefs on myself and my children. They are called my relatives. BTW, my brother is a Preacher.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 15, 2015
  9. give me vtec

    give me vtec Active Member

    I dont really consider the NIV the whole bible. What we have today is the result of 500 years of the Catholic Church editing the Bible to fit their needs. The Bible is indeed a collection of hand-me-down stories from generations past and was edited at the council of nicene. If you want all of them you need the Oxford annotated bible. It has everything in it.

    http://www.amazon.com/Annotated-Revised-Standard-Apocrypha-Hardcover/dp/019528478X
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 15, 2015
  10. kerf

    kerf Guest

    Perhaps he's worried about your wicked soul. Just smile and ignore him, after all, maybe he's wrong and there isn't a h e l l. Like the song says, "I'll never know by liv'n, only by die'n will tell".

    Do you feel lucky today?
     
  11. scokes

    scokes Member

    As stated by the great prophet Jimi Hendrix

    "I'm the one that has to die when it's time for me to die, so let me live my life the way I want to."

    Thanks for the link Vtec. I have a copy collecting dust on my bookshelf between "The Origin of Species" and "The Tao of Pooh" but maybe someone else will read this who has never heard of it, will go out and grab a copy.
    This is why I started the thread, Mind expansion and more unanswered questions....
     
  12. kerf

    kerf Guest

    I wouldn't waste my time think'n about if I were you, besides I understand it's a dry heat, shouldn't be all that bad. If you see brother Hendrix, tell him Kerf says "hi".
     
  13. give me vtec

    give me vtec Active Member

    I should correct myself... I think the first 5 books of the Hebrew Bible are indeed written by God not by man. The rest of the Bible seems to be a collection of generational information.
     
  14. scokes

    scokes Member

    And I'll bet he used hemp paper, too!

    :reddevil: :argue: :angel:
     
  15. SimpleSimon

    SimpleSimon Active Member

    Perhaps it might help to define one's terms properly.

    Using the definition above, one can clearly see that science does not assert as fact anything not provable as fact. It can, and does, assert as theory many ideas which strict biblical creationists disagree with - as well as the much less strict Intelligent Design proponents.

    As a working scientist, it was incumbent upon me to support my hypothees with data, to refine those hypotheses in the light of any conflicting data, and to seek to develop a theory which took the known facts into account and provided a predictive model for probable outcomes of experiments. When, as frequently happens, new data does not match up with the model, it is essential that a scientist be prepared to modify that model/theory to account for the observed facts.

    Science is a system for understanding our world which explicitly abjures faith , but in no wise denigrates or supplants faith in those matters/questions which are untestable. Is there/are there any god(s)? I don't know, and the only source of "knowledge" with which to answer the question is faith - to date, there is no verifiable evidence either way.

    Faith and science address our world from two very different and seperate foundations, and are not in conflict therefore. Any perceived conflict is a result of misapprehension or misrepresentation of what each is. Where science requires facts and logic, religion requires faith and acceptance.

    When a relgious person asserts as a matter of faith that god created the heavens and the earth, and all that is therein, that's just fine - for those who choose to accept that. Science seeks to explain our world on the basis of observable, measurable facts, and to develop explanatory and predictive theories utilizing the tools of rational thought - logic and mathematics.

    I'd really like to see some tangible, measurable proof of the existence of a god, and an explanatory model which uses that proof to make testable predictions about the nature and future actions of such.

    The best fit to that of which I am aware (and my understanding of this may be wholely wrong) lies in a fairly recent development in quantum theory which has been labelled the "observer effect". Basically, in the absence of an observer, events remain only probabilities, and may go to any of all possible outcomes - in the presence of an observer, the phenomelogical wave condenses to a specific outcome.

    Now, in light of that, consider
    What is the Word here? It is the Logos in the Greek, and is not just a label - it carries implications of action authority. One could just as easily say: In the beginning was the Observer, and the Observer created reality by observation.
     
  16. scokes

    scokes Member

    "If a tree falls in the woods,..."

    Simple Simon is not so Simple after all! Thanks for the input. This is definately turning out the way I had hoped.

    I do however believe that science can in fact help strengthen one's faith as mentioned earlier by "proving the Bible" or at least some of events told in the Bible.
     
  17. SimpleSimon

    SimpleSimon Active Member

    Which, in my view as a retired scientist, is perfectly fine. There is an old saying, "Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence."

    If science "proves" some of the stories in the Bible are fact, that does not say anything at all about other stories therein. I've read the bible extensively, in many different translations, as well as various other religios scriptures, and frankly find it a useful tool for understanding the thoughts and actions of my fellows. It does not, for me, provide any useful explanation or understanding as regards the nature and origins of our reality.
     
  18. give me vtec

    give me vtec Active Member

    With tangible, measurable, proof it would not be faith it would be science.
     
  19. SimpleSimon

    SimpleSimon Active Member

    Exactly. Which is why I stated that science and faith are two entirely different things, and there needn't be any conflict between them.
     
  20. scokes

    scokes Member

    I feel that one cannot have faith without reason. And one cannot reason without Science.

    Adapted from William S. Hatcher and Douglas Martin, The Baha'i Faith: The Emerging Global Religion (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985), pp. 87-89

    The Baha'i teachings stress the fundamental harmony of science and religion. This view derives from the belief that truth (or reality) is one. For if truth is indeed one, it is not possible for something to be scientifically false and religiously true.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads -
  1. Mountainman
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    283