Creationism and Evolutionism, My Take on It All

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-01-24 11:31am

I noticed alot of heated debating going on in here about creationism. Well, here is my take on it all. I will start out by saying that I am a Christian. Now that that is past, here is how I see it. Is it not possible that the 6 days mentioned in Genesis is LONGER than 6 acutal days? I mean, what is a day to God? Who is to say that it wasn't a hundred billion years? I am just saying that the way it was written was possibly to put it in a way of understanding to people ~2500 years ago. It could be more of an illustration of what happened, and it might not necessarily literally mean 1 week. When looked at this way, evolution and creationism almost go hand in hand, or rather, can coexist without contradicting each other.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-01-24 11:38am

All look another Intellgent Designer...
Two points
If God Made us he sure did fuck up practialy everything
Your Theory is Intellgent Design, Your adding another Term which is Redunant to an existing theroy

If both explain the same thing but one has less terms it is correct one by Occum's Razor

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2003-01-24 11:45am

Creationism implies "Intelligent Design", that a God made us from scratch with all the useless leftover stuff from other mammals, like fingernails, body hair, or an appendix. That he gave us a lot of body fat so we could live in the ocean like the freakin' dolphins or whales, when it's been proven that animal fur does a hell of a better job both at insulating from heat and from cold.

Evolution, on the other hand, intelligently points out that we descended from animals who actually had use for all that shit, and that it atrophied for lack of use (or need).

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-01-24 11:46am

Perhaps you should drop your childish myths and recognize the validity of modern science.

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2003-01-24 11:58am

Kid, we have YET to require gods in ANY model of ANY part of the physical universe or human culture. What makes you think there's any need to make room for it NOW?

We don't NEED God to explain how the universe came to be. We don't NEED to accomodate Genesis to explain the origins of life. We don't NEED to accomodate Jesus into our understanding of morality. And we don't NEED ignorant prats suggesting that we do.

Face it. Your god is a useless addition to a fully functional and understandable theory, and no one is ever going to examine that theory to make sure it falls in line with a story written by Sumerians to appease the crowds, and stolen by passing nomads who eventually wrote them down as their own myths.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-24 12:02pm

The "six really long days" argument is an old one.

However, it doesn't work. The order of events is totally wrong (light before the Sun, the Sun before all the other stars, etc). The ratios are wrong (if 15 billion years was 7 days, then mankind shouldn't have been created until the last second of the last day. Even if you throw "days" completely out the window, it's hard to rationalize the foolishly broken sequence in which there are plants before the Sun, the Earth before the stars, etc.

The only way to rationalize a deity with science is to go deist, and treat the Bible as purely mythological.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-01-24 12:23pm

Darth Wong wrote: However, it doesn't work. The order of events is totally wrong (light before the Sun, the Sun before all the other stars, etc).

The order of events doesn't just contradict scienc,e it contradicts the same stroy told again in the Bible.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-24 12:34pm

Darth Wong wrote:The "six really long days" argument is an old one.

However, it doesn't work. The order of events is totally wrong (light before the Sun, the Sun before all the other stars, etc). The ratios are wrong (if 15 billion years was 7 days, then mankind shouldn't have been created until the last second of the last day. Even if you throw "days" completely out the window, it's hard to rationalize the foolishly broken sequence in which there are plants before the Sun, the Earth before the stars, etc.

The only way to rationalize a deity with science is to go deist, and treat the Bible as purely mythological.

It also ignores the fact that the Bible describes evenings and mornings for each day. Furthermore, the author's intent was obviously 7, 24-hour days, given that the Jews' calendar week is billions of years long. I could post an extremely long hate mail exchange on this subject, where the guy tried claiming that "created" didn't mean "created."

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-01-24 01:21pm

Created didn't mean Created, huh? That doesn't make much sense...

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2003-01-24 01:28pm

NF_Utvol wrote:Created didn't mean Created, huh? That doesn't make much sense...

You've ignored the rest of the criticism.

The fact is, beyond the accusations of ignorance, occam's razor does not favor god in an equation describing the origins of the universe as we observe them today. Proof of this is easily available and visible. The only fallback point available to the Christian apologist is 'God is a practical joker, who has designed the universe to appear like he didn't design it at all'. If you want to be a Christian and a scientist, try that stance, because although still illogical, it at least is a currently-unrefutable belief.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-01-24 01:35pm

Everyone knows the universe was created by the big bang, so why do the creationists can`t accept that.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-01-24 01:56pm

Durandal wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:The "six really long days" argument is an old one.

However, it doesn't work. The order of events is totally wrong (light before the Sun, the Sun before all the other stars, etc). The ratios are wrong (if 15 billion years was 7 days, then mankind shouldn't have been created until the last second of the last day. Even if you throw "days" completely out the window, it's hard to rationalize the foolishly broken sequence in which there are plants before the Sun, the Earth before the stars, etc.

The only way to rationalize a deity with science is to go deist, and treat the Bible as purely mythological.
It also ignores the fact that the Bible describes evenings and mornings for each day. Furthermore, the author's intent was obviously 7, 24-hour days, given that the Jews' calendar week is billions of years long. I could post an extremely long hate mail exchange on this subject, where the guy tried claiming that "created" didn't mean "created."

But wait, are you saying God, the divine being, creator of all, got something wrong? *fake look of shock*
[/Troy McLure]

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-01-24 02:03pm

*coughcough* Under the philosophical posits of the Franciscan monk William of Ockham, matter itself can be removed from the universe as an unnecessary plurality. Of course, so can mind. It all depends on what is considered necessary. The ontological Occam's Razor (since it is a philosophical principle at its core) cannot be used to determine the validity of one school of thought over another, but merely to determine the validity of a theory within that school. Otherwise we end up with solipsism: the most basic theory that works is that I and my thoughts exist, and all else is just my thoughts. Of course, I'll probably get flamed three ways from Sunday for this, but that's straight out of the Skeptic's Dictionary at http://skepdic.com/occam.html

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-24 02:24pm

That is only true if you regard "the physical universe is real" as a "school of thought" rather than a fact. No one can stop you (philosophers love to deny the existence of the universe, perhaps out of some perverse desire to pretend they know something normal people don't), but I have never met someone who was willing to demonstrate his faith in the non-existence of physical reality by eating a bullet or throwing himself off a skyscraper.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-01-24 02:30pm

Agreed. I do think it (scientific realism) is a school of thought in that it admits only to the existence of the observable universe. I personally believe physical reality is real. My professor is a skeptic who says that we must function as if it is real, but it cannot be proven that it is real. He's probably actually a solipsist, but he wants to find evidence beyond just his own existence. I personally think it is possible that more than just the physical exists, although I'm still trying to figure out if numbers exist or whether they're just descriptions of the state of an object/group of objects...

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-01-24 02:49pm

The Dark wrote:I'm still trying to figure out if numbers exist or whether they're just descriptions of the state of an object/group of objects...

Hmm... [scratches head]

I would describe numbers as the description of a particular state. What we use to percieve, record, encode those states are real physical objects (particular neural path in your brain for example).

You don't have to stop with numbers: eg. the concept that a small circle will fit into a big circle ... its simply a desciption of reality, which we percieve by encoding this "observation" with other physical objects.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-01-24 03:16pm

Montcalm wrote:Everyone knows the universe was created by the big bang, so why do the creationists can`t accept that.

Scientific ignorance and/or religious fundamentalism.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-24 03:35pm

NF_Utvol wrote:Created didn't mean Created, huh? That doesn't make much sense...

Yes, he claimed that the Bible described things as perceived by an observer on Earth, even though the wording makes it abundantly clear that it was telling what God was doing, not what someone was seeing. After a couple of E-mails, I seriously could not follow his argument because it didn't resemble anything even close to reasonable, was massively contradictory, and he flat-out ignored specific verses, even after I repeatedly pointed them out and explained their significance to him. Then he eventually degraded into your standard moron Christian apologist, demanding that I explain evolution to him, why I said that evolution was a fact, about evolution not being able to be "proven," and all that other typical shit I've come to expect from those people. Hell, this guy was so stupid that he told me I was using a copout when I said that there was no time "prior" to the big bang.

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2003-01-24 07:12pm

I fail to see why everybody is so pissed about this... From what I can tell from his posts, he's a theistic evolutionist. He's not denying evolution, nor trying to force his belief that God exists on you. You guys need to calm down, stop stop bashing everybody who believes in the existence of a God.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-24 07:15pm

Exonerate wrote:I fail to see why everybody is so pissed about this... From what I can tell from his posts, he's a theistic evolutionist. He's not denying evolution, nor trying to force his belief that God exists on you. You guys need to calm down, stop stop bashing everybody who believes in the existence of a God.

What are you on about? No one has flamed NF_Utvol in this thread. We're simply debunking the idea that the Bible can be rationalized with observation.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-01-24 08:17pm

NF_Utvol wrote:When looked at this way, evolution and creationism almost go hand in hand, or rather, can coexist without contradicting each other.

Bollocks.

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2003-01-24 08:26pm

weemadando wrote:
NF_Utvol wrote:When looked at this way, evolution and creationism almost go hand in hand, or rather, can coexist without contradicting each other.
Bollocks.

It all depends on your interpretation of the Bible.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-24 08:29pm

Exonerate wrote:
weemadando wrote:
NF_Utvol wrote:When looked at this way, evolution and creationism almost go hand in hand, or rather, can coexist without contradicting each other.
Bollocks.
It all depends on your interpretation of the Bible.

There's no interpretation, save for extraordinarily loose and ludicrously unreasonable ones, of the Bible which can conform to observed fact and accepted scientific theory. If you'd like to present an interpretation that can be reconciled with observed fact, feel free to present it.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-24 08:48pm

Actually, I have already developed a scientifically consistent interpretation of the Bible: I interpret it to be nonsense.

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » 2003-01-24 09:31pm

Actually, a better creationist story is one from Africa were God vomitted up the world. At least you could rationalize vomit = explosion = big bang.

Anyway, all these creationist stories were made by a small group of people with very little education an no scientific tools to explain how the world came to be and works to the ignorant masses with a piss poor quality of life. While I oppose marxism on every level (except public education), I have to agree with his statement that religion is a tool to keep people down - work hard and don't stir shit and you'll have a nice after life; cause trouble (especially for the rulers) and burn in hell. Fear is a wonderful tool.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Creationism and Evolutionism, My Take on It All

Creationism and Evolutionism, My Take on It All

Re: Creationism and Evolutionism, My Take on It All

Re: Creationism and Evolutionism, My Take on It All

Re: Creationism and Evolutionism, My Take on It All

Re: Creationism and Evolutionism, My Take on It All