The Last Homely House
General => Council of Cobra => Topic started by: Centurion on October 24, 2008, 12:17:40 PM
-
Just curious I myself am a christian and a young-earth creationist just wondering? ???
-
Oh dear. This is one of those third rail topics.... :gah:
-
well, I am willing to take a chance. I'm a christian, but I have not determined yet what to think about the earth. I know too little to have an opinion. It is all about how to read the bible. Is it supposed to be a sciencebook, that has all the answers? Or is it a book in which God has above all has showed his will, to have a relation with people.
Why do I question this? Because in history it has shown that the 'church' has banned people who had different opionons about creation. For example scientists claiming that the world was round, or that the sun was going round the earth were banned, for the bible stated otherwise....
Don't get me wrong, I believe in an allmighty God. Whether He has done it in 4,5 bilion years, in 6 days or in a splitsecond, it is all possible. But why I have these wonderings? Because what if there is prove that for example the world is older than we assume? Are we thrown of, or are we able to go on? We are summoned to believe with all our heart and all our mind.
It is not about things that can't be proven. The ressuraction of Jesus is something that is unqueastionable for me. That is the core of the Bible. Him being crusified, and came back to life, that was necesarry to redeem us. And if people say that people can't ressuract from death, I don't care, cause otherway around -proving that they can- isn't possible either.
I've been around a lot of forums, I have seen a lot of debate. This is therefor not an attempt to rise that debate again, but more to centre the question: denying evolution, denying an old earth, are we doing that out of fear (what if that is true, what else is) or is it out of faith?
-
"Creationism", as it's come to be called, and the theory of Evolution are not based in "scientific" fact, no matter what anyone may try and push on you. Anyone who says differently doesn't understand (or chooses to ignore) the definition of science, which is at its very core a repeatable test case. We can't repeat the creation of life, the universe, and everything. :P
So what does that leave us with? Faith, and faith alone.
As for me, I have faith that "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". I cannot justify it by science, and it is folly to even try. But then again, I don't need to. "For the Bible tells me so." ;)
Could God have used some type of evolution as part of His creation? Sure, I suppose so. But I kind of doubt it. I've always been of the belief that things just suddenly came into existence where they didn't exist before. No, I can't back it up, but that's how I have personally always looked at it.
-
What I'm about to say isn't supposed to come off as a sleight against any one person.
The idea that Christian = Creationist is absolutely ludicrous. Heck, I don't even consider myself a Christian, since I've seen that the overwhelming majority of Christians don't even know who they're following or even why they follow the practices that they do. I'm a follower of Christ - my faith is what defines me - and yet I believe 100% in evolution. There's no question in my mind that we evolved from monkeys, but there's no conflict in my heart as to "what" is right.
God is the greatest scientist. He's the greatest mathematician. He gave us a rich, complicated universe as to allow us an infinite place to explore and learn. He didn't just *poof* everything into existence; rather, he created physics, time, math, and everything else to keep us guessing, to keep us learning.
Ultimately, the Bible does not have all the answers. It says nothing about dinosaurs. Which makes since, because at that point in human evolution dinosaurs were an unknown. For God to have tipped his hat to them would have confused and upset his plan, I think. I don't think the Bible is some infallible book of infinite knowledge and insight - I see the Bible as one way to get closer to God and not the only way. It is a tool, a conduit, to better-understand our purpose on the Earth. Some people depend on the Bible in their Walk with God. Some people do not.
I am one of the latter. My Walk has been long and arduous, showing me God's truth through the very nature of my life. I understand what the Bible teaches but have learned my lessons from hearing God directly as he guides me along.
I'm getting off-topic now. Let me get this debate firmly off by saying I think the Earth is billions of years old. Dinosaurs came and went long before us; humanity is relatively new. We evolved from primates, but our origin is not as important as our destination.
-
I know Dain that it takes faith for accepting Evolution just as much as for the bible. But then again, science is also about accepting what is most likely. I cannot prove that there is no mouse in my house at this very moment, but with my lethal cats around it is not very likely that there are mice anywhere in the mansion.
-
I know Dain that it takes faith for accepting Evolution just as much as for the bible. But then again, science is also about accepting what is most likely.
What is 'most likely' depends entirely on an individual's perspective. For me, it is far more likely that a supreme being set the universe into motion than for the universe to simply "have been" forever.
-
to scientists, it is not. What is more likely is just a matter statistics. If I have 2 dices I will say that if I throw a 100 times, I will have thrown 7 the most. Another person can challenge me, by saying I will not. Scientists will agree with me though.
-
Hey. My comment about being a Christian Young-Earth Creationist got deleted! :P
To open up my case, I dig out a thread from "ye olde CC board."
http://lotrtcgdb.com/community/viewtopic.php?t=5744
And that's enough for me. :D
-
I accept the theory of evolution, yes. Thought I was the only one here who does. You guys sure could've taken some load off my back in the last debate. :lol:
-
As a biologist, studying this thing for more than 5 years i say that i´m evolutionist.
Like Dain said you cannot prove the existence (o the non-existence) of an almighty entity, but when you study evolution and all his dinamycs and concept involved deeply as i had you realise that evolution really does a lot of sense and can even be proved! Natural Evolution is one of the most solid theory i have seen at Biology.
Like i said before i respect other beliefs, whatever they are, but i must say that Evolution and natural selection seems must more logic for me than creacionism. You really can seal the question giving an ultimate proof of each. Scince can be kind of "religion belief" but there is something different about it: his knowloge can be extrapolated to it´s distinct areas and things like a precision spaceship or even a new biologic species can be done associating it´s knowloge. I´m not saying that all things done by sciene are good (No way!) and things done by religion are bad or useless (in fact sometimes can be the opposite) but is clear to me that scince has direct aplication in our "real" world.
I will not stick with it, but that´s what i think.
Cheers.
-
oh and just a comment something dinosaur like is mentioned in the bible menace, in job the behemoth and the leviathan.
As for me, I haven't done enough study to check, and all the sources are biased ;) in the end I go with the whole does it matter argument and keep my tongue to myself.
-
but is clear to me that scince has direct aplication in our "real" world.
What so called 'creationists' believe is science. The way you seem to view it is that evolution is 'real' science and 'creationism' is religious nonsense with no real application in the 'real' world. You see it as religion vs science.
No, it is scientific theory vs scientific theory. ;)
Now I have a question for anyone who hold the Theory of Evolution as fact. (1) How do you believe life originated, and (2) What is your view on science?
-
Every day, I get new vocabulary! :up:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
evo·lu·tion·ist
noun
a person who accepts the principles of biological evolution
a person who believes in the possibility of political and social progress by gradual, peaceful steps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I accept the principles of biological evolution - but, as biologist, I have to say: men do not come from monkeys. They are relatives, but seen as cousins - not as direct ancestors!
If the bible speaks about "days" in genesis - it means "day", or any other unit for time (eg: a billion of years) in its original language (just a case of Interpretation in translation in germanic languages!)! In addition, the bible shows us the right order of creating the world - prooved by science!
You see, there is no problem to believe in both, which does not mean it is truth! For example: Big Bang! It could not have ever been (endless energie released in endless little time - that is, as far as humans know, impossible!), inspite of this, nearly every one believe in this theory!
-
In fact Big bang it´s not infinite energy..the astrophysic field have calcaleted it (about 10 elevated at 31 J i think, but the number could be wrong).
Yes evolution normaly deal with "common ancestor" not "direct relatives".
Creacionism could be a theory but it´s not called scince since most of it´s principles can´t be tested.
Life originated by chance. My goal is not to describe all theories of origin of life on earth but if you research and understand some principles of chemistry and physcis makes a lot of sense.
Yes, you can belive in evolution and in the existence of some superior entity, it´s up to you at which level (escale) you switch one explanation for the other.
-
SOP speaks the truth.
-
SOP speaks the truth.
And you spam.
If anyone can't access the link, I'll post it, but I'd like to debate the point of increasing, virtually infinite complexity. How did the perfect conditions emerge to make such an infinitely complex system?
-
Let us not confuse opinions with spam.
-
GateTroll, the things i said didn´t come for some crazzy attack or inspiration, but from years and years of studying areas of science and i will be glad to explain to you my thoughts.
1- Where Big Bang came from? No definitive answer to this, good thing in science is that you don´t part of the pressumption that you got all the answers and scientist don´t have any fear of saying: " i don´t know, maybe one day we will get the answer". The difference with religion is only that you don´t atribute that to some divine oniscient power, when you don´t have a better explanation you just say: "it´s god work". I´m not an expert at this but if you talk with some astrophysician we will simply answer somwrhing like: "nothing that we know until moment". Again, no problem if you choose the god´s option, i will respect your beliefs, but then you must respect (and try to learn about) mine.
2- Modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) have a common ancestor with monkey and Neanderthals and current opinion is that Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalis) were extinct and Homo sapiens don´t directly derive from them, but from Homo erectus lineage. Still the fact if ever Homo sapiens had direct contatc with Neanderthals is controverse. So i think you was precipitated in making that afirmative, for that even people that study this issue for his entire life can´t give a definitive answer (but they still trying to make theorys based on empirical data and formuling hypothesis.
3- Creationism isn´t considered science by great part of scientist international community. Even the pope had pointed that church Just this don´t tell you that creacionism sucks or rules. Be or not be considered a science (or pseudo-science) don´t means that the thing is necessarily good or bad.
Yes, in evolution theory you have many ways to test it, learn about population dinamics, genetic manipulation, Evo Devo, and even molecular clock (the last with plenty questionable aspect in my opinion) and you will see evolution hypothesis being tested.
4- Well, i belive that life could originate by chance, if that is what you speaking of. By chance, molecular compond dinamycs could change to stand against forces of entrophy and then what we call "life" can evolve (even that definition of life is a little bit tricky). Experiments have poited to that. Creacionism always ends in one prerrogative that we can´t get a answer (God´s work). I respect if you belive on creacionism, but i´m saying that it´s prerrogatives don´t explain the things so well than evolutionism for me, you may have your own beliefs. Of course Evolution theory may have many mistakes, but with adavance of it´s knowloge i guess things get even more logic and clear (even that the "real truth behind life and it´s origins could never be solved).
5- The fact is: tested or not it will ever end in what you belive or not. How can you tell what is "the truth"? Sorry, but you can´t, then you have to rely on theorys that explain the reality you observe (throught your senses) and that´s when evolution x creationism show up.
I have to say that evolution = scince. Like every theory it may have lot of errors and misunderstandings interpretations, but in fact evolution is consider a well stabilished stream of the the scince Biology. Again you can choose not to belive on this theory, but please keep in mind that when you said "Evolution is not scince" you are against hundreds and hundreds of scientist that use empirical methods to do research, so please don´t say that this is "utter stupidity"
I have one curiosity i like to ask to you: How older you think Earth is? and how older the first animals we can call humans are? You belive that creationism is more related to other fields of scince (Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Geology, etc...) than evolutionism?
-
Guys, keep this civil.
-
wow Lurtzy....minion of the white hand, advocating civil behaviour?....haha :D
-
Page 2. Wow.
Yeah, I never saw this working.
<locked>
-
Ok, every single post with offensive comments (or the ones related to them) were UTTERLY DELETED. In case you're wondering, yes, they were not even moved to the Dead Pile.
I'm leaving NBarden's post above to remind you guys that this topic already got locked once, so I'm going to unlock it now and let it be but it can be locked again it it goes wrong.
However, be forewarned, and this is DIRECTLY for you, Gate Troll, but works for everyone else as well: ANY post containing offensive language will be deleted WITHOUT prior notice, and I'll personally talk with Kralik and Dáin to get the user banned for a week, for starters. Consider this a first-offense bonus (although we know it's not a first offense).
Are we all clear?
-
And don't forget to check here (http://lotrtcgdb.com/forums/index.php?topic=278.0) if you have any questions about what's acceptable...and what will result in potential action having to be taken. Just FYI for those that haven't seen it already, or just haven't read through it in a while.
-
Really, someone should just delete this thread forever - it was never going to work. I don't see any need for anyone to continue posting here. It's not like anyone is going to change their views on this fundamental issue in an online debate.
Thranduil
-
Yes, but I, for one, like reading people's opinions, thoughts and backings for it.
-
I had intended for this to be a list for me to note to AVOID insulting people in the future by accidentally assuming they were Christian a simple statement of principles NOT to spark a war I can see that this was something of a mistake.:evil:
so please if I wanted a debate I would have said evolution vr. creationism/intelligent design
-
But let me be honest, I think being offended because someone assumed you're Christian would be pretty unreasonable, now wouldn't it? It's like me, Pepin and leokula being offended when people assume we live in a city in the middle of the jungle, because we're from Brazil. I think it's much more reasonable to laugh about it and explain than to get upset about it.
-
I realize that now and I wanted to clarify the intention of the topic. perhaps it was a little bit foolish my reasoning was something along the line of "you can never be to careful" perhaps I shall work towards more positive debates in the future
Who would like to debate the best brand of jello
-
Well people, i was really trying to show my point of view.
I agree with somethings said here but i profundly disagree with others, so just doing what 99% people do at this situation: show arguments to make people think about it (well, i have to confess that in 98% of people just want to convice other people to think same as he/she...but sometimes that´s not my case).
About the thing said that Evolution is not a science, as a Biologist i have to disagree: there are important international journals that publish papers dealing with evolution like "trends in ecology and evolution" and even "top impact megazines" like Scince and Nature. Evolution ideas can be tested and predictions can be made relying in his thories. Like i said before they possible may not reflect the "truth" and you can disagree with them, but saing that evolution isn´t part of the field science of Biology may be a "negligence" (in the lack of a better word to put here).
Even that my field of work don´t deal only with evolution research, i work with its theories a little bit and my colleges work with it directly, including testing hypothesis. As far as i know from my little knowloge after a few years studing it, i have to say that is a very solid theory.
Unfortunetely i had never done profund research at creascionism (althought i have read some things) so i know it very superficialy.
If what GT said is true, that creascionism states that earth have only about 6 thousands years, i have to said that this information is very conflicting with other estabilished knowloge of other science areas like Physics, Chemystry and Geology. So i would like to hear what creationists may have to say about it.
As far as i know intelligent design states that such complexity seen in nature cannot be explained by nothing other than an creator´s work. Studying Evolution we find nice hypothesis and theories about how the things could work (and how such complexity could have arise). The fact is that at given scale you can always atribute what you don´t know to a divinity. I really think this kinf of faith can have good implications and positive aspects sometimes. I live in a catholic majority country (even that the law says it must be "laico" - maybe FM or leokula can help me to translate this) and i reserve to me the right to belive in what i find the most logic and pragmatic theory: Evolution.
I try to never judge people just because they are this or that, but by the way they act over my "perceived reality".
That´s it for my cheap philosophy today!
Cheers everyone!
-
I am really open-minded, but that seems really incredible for me: the earth is 6 thousand years old? :-k That does not convince me - i can not believe that (that is just my opinion)...
With C-14, you can get aproxximately the age of any organic things.
-
I am really open-minded, but that seems really incredible for me: the earth is 6 thousand years old? :-k That does not convince me - i can not believe that (that is just my opinion)...
With C-14, you can get aproxximately the age of any organic things.
That´s why i cited chemystry...
Anyway, i will wait for some differnt ideas to show. :up:
-
Yeah, well not who believe in creationalism believe the world is necessarily 6000 years old... a lot of different groups believe in creationalism but not all believe in the "young earth." I personally don't think it matters either way.
-
I also happen to not buy this 6,000 years thing, although I'm somewhat of a creationist. I mean, c'mon, the way we're wrecking the planet, I'd feel much better to know that we at least got some good mileage out of it first! :P
-
I do believe in the literal translation of the Bible, that God created the Earth, but I believe the days spoken of in Genesis are more creative periods of a timescale we would struggle to understand (Moses probably struggled to comprehend it has he wrote it).
-
I believe that when God says "And there was evening and there was morning, the first day" he means a day.
I'm no expert on the Hebrew, but I do know that the Hebrew used for day doesn't mean period of time, but actual 24-hour day. Just out of curiosity, why would you think that 'day' means anything else?
-
I think if God wanted to make Earth in 6 24 hour period's, then he could.
But is the scripture referring to our days, or days as God reckons them...?
-
I believe God is allmighty, so He could have done it in 4,5 billion years, in 6 days or in a splitsecond. A few questions though:
- People try to calculate the age of the world by measuring the age of Adam and all his descendants. I always wonder -not as a sceptic , just as a general wondering- whether Adam's age is to be determined from the day he was created, or from the day they fell in sin?
- Polar ice has layers, each containing oxygen and CO2. These layers are like the rings in a tree, with which you can tell how old a tree is. It is known that nowadays each year an new layer is created. With these method they go back in time like 300.000 years. Does anyone has an explanation for that? I'm not an expert, so I don't provide this as evidence, it was just something I have seen, multiple times, and that makes me wonder.
- Like I said earlier, what if there is prove that the earth is older, I mean actual prove, not a model, a theory what so ever. Will people still try to ignore those things, out of fear that what if this is not true, what else is? Or are people willing to accept it, stating that the bible is not a scientific book, but God's invitation for us to accept, in which He wants us to have a relation with Him.
These are all things I am thinking about from time to time........Does anyone recognize this, or is it all just gibberish?
-
I agree with you GE on the first point... who knows how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden before they were cast out. And what was going on in the world around them all that time?
Not that it matters in the end lol, but it is an interesting thought.
-
At peping: I have heard many arguments for age from both sides, and both seem to have good points.
the problem is, it is nigh on impossible to find an UNbiased source. Which leaves civil debate, but it is almost impossible to have civil debate about this.
So yeah...very confusing.
-
I am somewhat in agreement with GE on the calculation of 6,000 however I am not sure about 300,000 I mean honestly how long have we been watching glaciers? How fast do these layers accumulate? Have they always been accumulating at the same speed? However on the first point GE you are dead on the money how the heck are we supposed to know that? Assuming that Adam's age is calculated from creation the idea has some weight if it isn't then there is no way to know! However when God says day I believe very strongly that he meant day the Hebrew word used there is quite definite, yom meaning normal 24 hour day. Also take a step back and think for a minute making the days of Genesis ages in which there is thousands upon thousands and millions upon millions of years of death and sickness and suffering before the fall of man does it make sense to even mention the fall in the bible or to warn Adam and Eve about death if they ate out of a tree? Seems a little ridiculous I mean if the days were truly ages then Adam and Eve would have seen all the animals dying around them then I think they would put 2 and 2 together and guessed that it would probably happen to them to. They were not stupid primitives after all right? so I am strongly oriented against day-age and gap theory not anyone who follows it but strongly against the idea itself.I believe I have made my position clear and hope sincerely that I have not offended anyone and if I have I am truly sorry.
Sincerely your humble commander of a hundred ;)
Centurion
-
I think if God wanted to make Earth in 6 24 hour period's, then he could.
But is the scripture referring to our days, or days as God reckons them...?
Well, it does say in the Bible that "a thousand years are like a day in God's sight and a thousand years are like a day" or something to that effect. By the way he says evening and morning though, I think he means a literal day.
-
Well, the thory of decaing of chemical elements ("half-life" if you prefer) makes it possible to calculated the aproximate age of many things that contains some kinds of atoms (or it´s radioactive forms). Based on this dating from rocks and Geology states that earth had more than 4 billions of years old. Astrophysics estimates even the age of or universe (like we know it) based on the background radiation energy mesured at many diferent points of it.
I know, thid things could seem a little "crazy" but they are all done based on the current most acetable theorys of all this scince areas. They could be wrong? Yes, they could but for now i choose to acept them as the most logic model to understand universe phenomena.
Fossil register seem to add embasament to all this (species from all kingdons). He have even civilizations (or pre-civilizations) that are said to have more than 5 thousands of years (that have leave registers).
For me it´s very hard to belive that Earth have only 6 thousand years, cause this contradict much of what different areas of scince states. Again it could be much wrong ideas here, but we can neglet the fact that with this solid theory (the current scince) human kind could create things like airplanes, drugs, computers and etc, based pretty much in some of this principles of Math, Physics, Chemystry, Geology, Biology and all others.
-
are you referring to C-14 dating or are you referring to the opinions of some geologists???
-
Now in this particular area I have absolutely no real information to provide, so if someone could help me out it'd be much appreciated.
I recall hearing at one point that the Bible rarely used "real" days in reference to the passage of time. For instance, the number 40 comes up over and over again throughout the Old Testament, and each time it does it corresponds to "a long period or a generation" instead of - literally - 40.
Anyone else heard this? Sound familiar?
-
Yes, I've heard things like that too. "Seventy times seven" usually means just a huge number, and things like that. Can't remember them all right now, though.... ](*,)
-
No I haven't however I do know as I said before that the hebrew word used in the passage is yom and means literal day 24 hours.
-
i'll try to shed some light on this m64. mostly in the bible it does use real days. there are some things like dain said, but for the most part the numbers are literal.
but, i know that the theory for non literal 7 days comes from the passage that says: to god one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as one day
i agree that we weren't there when the earth was created, and so it could have been made any way god wanted. i'm literally inclined, and here are a few reasons that i think might support it. but i wouldn't be surprised if i'm dead wrong, it's just this is the way i think now. on this side of fate.
one reason: since i don't believe the world evolved, god doesn't need a long time. (but he could have just as easily done it in a long time, so this isn't proof)
two reason: i think the use of the "one day is as a thousand" passage is simply meaning god doesn't exist in time like we do. he's god, he has no limitations. not even time. however, in context of creation, the first thing he makes is night and day, thus defining the "time" (days) that he has given us.
three reason: the fact that he worked six days and rested on the seventh set the foundation for our week. and the week has never been broken to my knowledge even though there have been attempts to change it. during the french revolution, the leaders wanted to change to a 10 day week, so there would be less days off work. now, i'm not ignoring the cultures who have no record of time at all. there are plenty of tribes who don't keep record of years, months weeks or days. and those people don't know how old they are exactly. they have a sketchy reconing of time, but nothing certain. but all civilized countries, that i know of, (and i could be wrong) use a seven day week. this also is no proof of a literal interpretation, but in my mind it sort of reinforces it. i hope this helped.
-mm
-
It did very much mm it is always good to have a compatriot. :)
-
Just want to point out that God separated light and darkness before he created the Sun and stars and such, so another question could be: is the night and day He created really physical night and day or physical light and darkness? I don't have an answer, I'm just bringing it up.
-
yeah, i see what you are saying, and, that could be true. but think in context. everything else created was real and physical, earth plants animals. and light and darkness are real. so in context it seems to suggest he created real days.
-mm
-
an interesting thought...as mm said the year is based on the cycle of the earth around the sun, the month is based on the moons cycle, the day is based on the spinning of the earth and the week is based on...the bible. Ban national weeks as unconstitutional! separation of church and state!
sorry couldn't resist ;)
-
Not to mention weekly rest day, Sunday. Also from the Bible, and it's even in the Work-related Laws, at least here it is. "Weekly rest, preferrably on Sundays".
-
yes, an excellent point. even if there is no god, the sheer universality of the 7 day week with designated rest day is astounding.
-mm
-
Did you know that the biblical day of rest was originally Saturday? In fact, the Jewish religion still observes Sabbath on Saturday. It was the Roman church that changed it to Sunday, because the people already worshipped another god on that day, so they changed it to Sunday. It made it easier to get people to worship Christ. Weird, huh? :)
-
Yeah, I think we worship on Sunday because Christ rose on a Sunday.
-
Did you know that the biblical day of rest was originally Saturday? In fact, the Jewish religion still observes Sabbath on Saturday. It was the Roman church that changed it to Sunday, because the people already worshipped another god on that day, so they changed it to Sunday. It made it easier to get people to worship Christ. Weird, huh? :)
yes, there are some protestant churches who still observe a Saturday sabbath. AND they took Christ down from the cross on friday evening because the Sabbath starts at sundown of the previous day. so, friday night. like when god is creating the earth it says: and the evening and morning were the first day.