Jump to content

Creationist Corner


Recommended Posts

I am often confused by what creationist actually do believe and it seems to vary from one person to another so this is a thread for the religous minded to speak their peace and explain without critisizim and to foster fair debate.These questions are intended to clarify the debate about creationism versus conventional science. As mentioned above, many of the questions are intended to explore what creationists think about the issues in a way that allows each side to understand each other better. I believe that they are fair questions to ask , but if anyone has objections to the content, tone or presuppositions, comments are certainly welcome.First if you could give a brief explantion of your view of creation. Who or which God and when you view creation happening, any evidence to back up your view is welcome as well.Then I have divided the subject questions into two parts, Scientific and Theological.Non-creationist view creation through conventional science. Many people hold to conventional science because they believe that it has been developed over centuries, driven by discoveries. They wonder how any person could explain the evidence any other way. Here is a very brief list of questions about evidence which many people find convincing and if you could give your view of the following 4 sub-topics.1. Why do all the different dating methods pointing to the earth being old, and life being around a long time- for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas - from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? These methods are from different fields and are quite diverse, yet manage to arrive at quite similar dates. (This is not answered by saying that radioactive decay is wrong. The question is why all these different methods give the same answers.)2.Chronological distribution of fossils. Every layer of the earth has uniformly produced fossils that coincide with that time period,e.g. pre-cambian or jurrasic. What is your explanation for this?3.Spatial distribution of living things. Why do certain animals and plants only live in certain areas, like Marsupials in Australia or why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.)4. Relationships between living things. There is a large body of information about the different species of animals and plants, systematically organized, which is conventionally represented as reflecting genetic relationships between different species. So, for example, lions are said to be more closely related to tigers than they are to elephants. If different kinds are not genetically related, what is the explanation for the greater and less similarities between different kinds of living things? That is to say, why would special creation produce this complex pattern rather than just resulting in all kinds being equally related to all others?Part Two, Theological.It is the impression of many people who support conventional science that many people who are creationists are so because of religious reasons. This is puzzling to people who consider themselves to be religious, yet accept the findings of conventional science.For example, some people feel that it is necessary to give naturalistic explanations for the wondrous events described in the Bible. Other people are curious as to why there should be a search for naturalistic explanations for these events, rather than acceptance of these events as signs from God, outside of the normal. 1. If you feel that the events of the Bible must be explained as the normal operation of natural phenomena, please explain why.Some people who believe in God find it difficult to accept that God would mislead people by giving evidence for conventional science. 2. Why is there all the evidence for an earth, and life on earth, more than 100,000 years old, and for the relationships between living things, and why were we given the intelligence to reach those conclusions?I am hoping that this can start fair debate without the religous feeling like they are being bombarded by the majority of athiests that frequent this forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

admiralackbar.jpg
2.Chronological distribution of fossils. Every layer of the earth has uniformly produced fossils that coincide with that time period,e.g. pre-cambian or jurrasic. What is your explanation for this?
I think I've seen most of these questions answered (whether or not I find the answers logical is beside the point), except for the whole dinosaur fossil thing. I've yet to hear an even remotely feasible theory on that one. But I don't think BG will take the bait on this one.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if there is a problem with the questions I asked up front what they might specifically be and they are open for discusion. I'm just trying to clarify alot of the misnomers that frequent the conversations in this forum so we can move forward.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am often confused by what creationist actually do believe and it seems to vary from one person to another so this is a thread for the religous minded to speak their peace and explain without critisizim and to foster fair debate.These questions are intended to clarify the debate about creationism versus conventional science. As mentioned above, many of the questions are intended to explore what creationists think about the issues in a way that allows each side to understand each other better. I believe that they are fair questions to ask , but if anyone has objections to the content, tone or presuppositions, comments are certainly welcome.First if you could give a brief explantion of your view of creation. Who or which God and when you view creation happening, any evidence to back up your view is welcome as well.Then I have divided the subject questions into two parts, Scientific and Theological.Non-creationist view creation through conventional science. Many people hold to conventional science because they believe that it has been developed over centuries, driven by discoveries. They wonder how any person could explain the evidence any other way. Here is a very brief list of questions about evidence which many people find convincing and if you could give your view of the following 4 sub-topics.1. Why do all the different dating methods pointing to the earth being old, and life being around a long time- for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas - from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? These methods are from different fields and are quite diverse, yet manage to arrive at quite similar dates. (This is not answered by saying that radioactive decay is wrong. The question is why all these different methods give the same answers.)2.Chronological distribution of fossils. Every layer of the earth has uniformly produced fossils that coincide with that time period,e.g. pre-cambian or jurrasic. What is your explanation for this?3.Spatial distribution of living things. Why do certain animals and plants only live in certain areas, like Marsupials in Australia or why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.)4. Relationships between living things. There is a large body of information about the different species of animals and plants, systematically organized, which is conventionally represented as reflecting genetic relationships between different species. So, for example, lions are said to be more closely related to tigers than they are to elephants. If different kinds are not genetically related, what is the explanation for the greater and less similarities between different kinds of living things? That is to say, why would special creation produce this complex pattern rather than just resulting in all kinds being equally related to all others?Part Two, Theological.It is the impression of many people who support conventional science that many people who are creationists are so because of religious reasons. This is puzzling to people who consider themselves to be religious, yet accept the findings of conventional science.For example, some people feel that it is necessary to give naturalistic explanations for the wondrous events described in the Bible. Other people are curious as to why there should be a search for naturalistic explanations for these events, rather than acceptance of these events as signs from God, outside of the normal. 1. If you feel that the events of the Bible must be explained as the normal operation of natural phenomena, please explain why.Some people who believe in God find it difficult to accept that God would mislead people by giving evidence for conventional science. 2. Why is there all the evidence for an earth, and life on earth, more than 100,000 years old, and for the relationships between living things, and why were we given the intelligence to reach those conclusions?I am hoping that this can start fair debate without the religous feeling like they are being bombarded by the majority of athiests that frequent this forum.
The reason I am not relegious at all is because there are no good answers to the questions you have logically laid out and posed here. There is as much evidence supporting the existence of "God" as there is supporting the existence of Zeus and Hera, yet Science has provided us with centuries and centuries of evidence contrary to the existence of any God, or at least a God as He has been portrayed by the Christian or any other relegion for that matter.Im sorry, but if im gonna mould my life around something and put all my faith and belief into something, I need at least SOME evidence to support what I am believing is in fact the truth, and not just some fairy tail people came up with thousands of years ago to explain why we are here and also to essentially create an enviroment of control for themselves, where one's true feelings are supressed by one's relegious beliefs.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The reason I am not relegious at all is because there are no good answers to the questions you have logically laid out and posed here. There is as much evidence supporting the existence of "God" as there is supporting the existence of Zeus and Hera, yet Science has provided us with centuries and centuries of evidence contrary to the existence of any God, or at least a God as He has been portrayed by the Christian or any other relegion for that matter.Im sorry, but if im gonna mould my life around something and put all my faith and belief into something, I need at least SOME evidence to support what I am believing is in fact the truth, and not just some fairy tail people came up with thousands of years ago to explain why we are here and also to essentially create an enviroment of control for themselves, where one's true feelings are supressed by one's relegious beliefs.
I appreciate your sentiments but this thread is an opportunity for the religous front to explain their beliefs, not be ridiculed for it.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the old earth thing is explained by saying that the earth was created old.Like when BG says you take a time machine back to the day Adam was created, he would be a fully mature man and you would think he's 20+ years old, but really he's only a day old.I don't know how dinosaur fossils are supposed to fit into that and I'm not sure what spatial distribution has to do with creation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe the old earth thing is explained by saying that the earth was created old.Like when BG says you take a time machine back to the day Adam was created, he would be a fully mature man and you would think he's 20+ years old, but really he's only a day old.I don't know how dinosaur fossils are supposed to fit into that and I'm not sure what spatial distribution has to do with creation.
Well, thank you for the reply Mr. JoeyJoJo sir. The reason conventional science would use spatial distribution as evidence of evolution is as follows, e.g. Australia has marsupials but no other area on the planet does. Their explanation would be that before the island broke off from southern asia there was a common descendent who was a marsupial (or animal with marsupial tendancies) and all the current marsupials evolved from that animal. Geneology would also show their likeness as well, e.g. 98% common dna. They would also wonder how they got there if at one time all the animals were on an ark while the earth was flooded. If Noah left them off say in Paris, how did they all wind up in the outback and none in Russia, China or the US? Fossil records also show older marsupials on the island as well. (I also believe, but don't hold me to this, that the only other mammals on the island that are non-marsupial are bats who could have flown there.Now I would assume the logical explanation would be that God created the world along with man at the same time and with the history and fossil record in place.The other question I asked was under Theology, part 2 and I would be curious as to your answer.2. Why is there all the evidence for an earth, and life on earth, more than 100,000 years old, and for the relationships between living things, and why were we given the intelligence to reach those conclusions?
Link to post
Share on other sites
They would also wonder how they got there if at one time all the animals were on an ark while the earth was flooded. If Noah left them off say in Paris, how did they all wind up in the outback and none in Russia, China or the US?
I don't know what the standard Creationist answer is for this, but logically speaking, if God can bring them to the ark from all the corners of the world, why can't he also send them all back?
2. Why is there all the evidence for an earth, and life on earth, more than 100,000 years old, and for the relationships between living things, and why were we given the intelligence to reach those conclusions?
I think you're trying to break the Creationist's logic, right? So I think you're asking, if it's true that the universe was created old, then why? I don't know; why not? You're looking at it like God is trying to trick you, but a Christian is going to look at it like God has given them the answers for what happened and they don't need to know God's motivation for why. Personally, I think trying to figure out human-like motivations for an omnipotent and omniscient god is silly anyway.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Randy, I think the problem with this approach is that you are assuming that they are trying to generate the best explanation for the available data. They aren't. They don't need an explanation for why kangaroos are in Australia. The answer is always that god set it up that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Randy, I think the problem with this approach is that you are assuming that they are trying to generate the best explanation for the available data. They aren't. They don't need an explanation for why kangaroos are in Australia. The answer is always that god set it up that way.
I agree with this. If you know that 2 + 2 = 4, you aren't going to bother with some complex mathematical proof to show why.That was probably a bad analogy.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know what the standard Creationist answer is for this, but logically speaking, if God can bring them to the ark from all the corners of the world, why can't he also send them all back?I think you're trying to break the Creationist's logic, right? So I think you're asking, if it's true that the universe was created old, then why? I don't know; why not? You're looking at it like God is trying to trick you, but a Christian is going to look at it like God has given them the answers for what happened and they don't need to know God's motivation for why. Personally, I think trying to figure out human-like motivations for an omnipotent and omniscient god is silly anyway.
Would you say the bible is silly? I believe it is full of the Omnipotent's human like motivations, us being in his image and all. So, you would say that God made the earth at some point, .e.g 10,000 years ago and all of science to confirm that the planet is indeed 4.6 billion years old, but that we should ignore science and not question why because we wouldn't be capable of understanding an omniscient god's motivation? Also, if a Christian is going to look at as if God has given us all the answers, what are those answers?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I don't think there's much to answer there.It's not ignoring science, is it? If someone says, "The earth was created as if it was already 4.6 billion years old" then that's confirming science, right? The "answers" are just what we've been talking about. Or did you mean something more profound?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Randy, I think the problem with this approach is that you are assuming that they are trying to generate the best explanation for the available data. They aren't. They don't need an explanation for why kangaroos are in Australia. The answer is always that god set it up that way.
I tend to think that if people are going to have a fervent belief in a religon they should be able to defend it better than closing their eyes, clicking their heels and saying "I think it's so". I honestly don't think most people ever really question their motivations or are aware of the massive amounts of science mounted against the idea. This is somewhat off-topic here but someone asked me the other day how someone could be intelligent and be a suicide bomber? I asked them how many people they knew that would be horrified at someone telling them their God was a lie. Seems most people think their personal version is fine.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Would I say that?I assume you mean would a Creationist say that.I suppose I'll try to answer from a Creationist viewpoint...
Yeah, sorry I didn't mean to infer. I think I re-worded it and forgot to go back and make that clear.
Actually, I don't think there's much to answer there.It's not ignoring science, is it? If someone says, "The earth was created as if it was already 4.6 billion years old" then that's confirming science, right? The "answers" are just what we've been talking about. Or did you mean something more profound?
Okay, so then this would be the opinion that God made the earth 4.6 billion years ago presumably from the big bang or something and then life evolved from that point giving us the fossil record and all of science. I can see that point but that would in effect kinda make the bible nil since the majority of it would be false then, starting with Adam and Eve. Why would we believe in Christianity at that point?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, so then this would be the opinion that God made the earth 4.6 billion years ago presumably from the big bang or something and then life evolved from that point giving us the fossil record and all of science. I can see that point but that would in effect kinda make the bible nil since the majority of it would be false then, starting with Adam and Eve. Why would we believe in Christianity at that point?
No, that God made the earth 10,000 (or whatever) years ago, but that he created an "old" earth that looks 4.6 billion years old. Like creating a fully mature Adam. By all tests and appearances he would seem 20+ years old on the creation day, but in "reality" he is just a day old.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe the old earth thing is explained by saying that the earth was created old.Like when BG says you take a time machine back to the day Adam was created, he would be a fully mature man and you would think he's 20+ years old, but really he's only a day old.I don't know how dinosaur fossils are supposed to fit into that and I'm not sure what spatial distribution has to do with creation.
Don't worry, nobody else does either.
I agree with this. If you know that 2 + 2 = 4, you aren't going to bother with some complex mathematical proof to show why.That was probably a bad analogy.
It was a bad analogy, but the sentiment behind it might even be worse. Discovery (scientific, medical, etc.) usually does come from looking closer at what we already know and finding out why things work the way they do in order to manipulate them at the most basic levels possible.
I am sure he would have nothing good to say about those two guitars. Both guitars are in the price range of the gift cards that I have and I have played both many times as I spend a lot of time sitting at Guitar Center playing guitars because I suck hard at making decisions. They both feel good. I would probably give the edge to the Ibanez because of the Wizard II neck which is super slim and fast. I love the look of the black one. The bat wing inlays are awesome.Exactly.My other two guitars are fixed bridge and both of these have floating bridges. The black one has a licensed floyd rose which is a crap shoot on how good it will be and also how reliable it will be and the blue one has an Edge III which is allegedly better than a licensed floyd. But I have no experiences with floating bridges and should probably take the most reliable because they can be a bitch to deal with.The pickups on the blue one suck but those can be replaced. I could get the bridge pup replaced with a PAF Pro for $80 installed but the black one has decent high output EMG H4's which I might not need to change. Gah. I have no idea. I probably will end up with the blue one since the black one is similar to my other Schecter. But god I love playing it. Maybe for my bday I can get more gift cards. Scram would probably recommend some Studio Les Paul for $4995. He would be right that it would be a superior guitar over these two but I don't have that kind of money.
Well this doesn't belong here at all.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not ignoring science, is it? If someone says, "The earth was created as if it was already 4.6 billion years old" then that's confirming science, right?
It's not ignoring science is it? If someone says, "lightning is magical bolts from zeus who makes them look like natural electrical phenomena because he wants us to believe in him by faith" then that's confirming science, right?
Link to post
Share on other sites
No, that God made the earth 10,000 (or whatever) years ago, but that he created an "old" earth that looks 4.6 billion years old. Like creating a fully mature Adam. By all tests and appearances he would seem 20+ years old on the creation day, but in "reality" he is just a day old.
bogus analogy. adam would have needed to "appear" fully mature or he wouldn't have been able to function as fully mature. the evidence for the age of the earth has nothing to do with its ability to function. god would have had to deliberately plant and manipulate evidence in a way meant to fool humans. if someone wants to claim that they're just making an excuse for irrational belief.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not ignoring science is it? If someone says, "lightning is magical bolts from zeus who makes them look like natural electrical phenomena because he wants us to believe in him by faith" then that's confirming science, right?
No, they'd say, "They look and act like natural electrical phenomena because that's the chosen method by which zeus sends them down to earth, and who are you to question why he would do it that way."
bogus analogy. adam would have needed to "appear" fully mature or he wouldn't have been able to function as fully mature. the evidence for the age of the earth has nothing to do with its ability to function.
Meh, I don't agree. If you have adam appearing fully mature when the earth was created, you have to have everything show up that way otherwise it'd just be a dude standing on a hunk of rock.
god would have had to deliberately plant and manipulate evidence in a way meant to fool humans. if someone wants to claim that they're just making an excuse for irrational belief.
Those pesky dinosaur bones again.
Link to post
Share on other sites
No, they'd say, "They look and act like natural electrical phenomena because that's the chosen method by which zeus sends them down to earth, and who are you to question why he would do it that way."
i don't see the difference. point was someone saying god made a young earth to look old is certainly ignoring science in favor of superstition. the evidence that lighting bolts are purely natural phenomena and that the earth is old extends comprehensively beyond their appearance or function. ALL of natural science fits together in a connected web of evidence that supports those conclusions.
Meh, I don't agree. If you have adam appearing fully mature when the earth was created, you have to have everything show up that way otherwise it'd just be a dude standing on a hunk of rock.
you missed the point. god wouldn't just have had to create the earth as functionally mature enough for human life - he also would have had to create evidence that it had actually aged billions of years in ways that have nothing to do with its ability to sustain human life. for example god could have made a mature functioning earth without etching 3.8 billion years worth of atomic decay in some of the rocks. it would be like god creating adam as a 20 year old then carefully etching exactly 20 years worth of wear on his teeth.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...