"Proof" for creationism
- Thread starter Invader
- Start date
wasted155 said:
Allow me to say this: it may be that the earth was designed intelligently and is only 6000 years old. I do not believe so, I would say that I am *sure* so. Regardless, it may be. If so, it was designed in such a manner as to appear to be very old, and in doing so, follow fundamental laws of science which our modern society has defined through experimentation and calculation. Thus, it is imperative that we teach only, in the science class, what science can prove and explain, because they are the laws that our world obeys. Creationism must be relegated to the philosophy class, for it is not science; it is the absence of science.
Also, this guy once gave a speech at my school. He is a douchebag.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_hovind
Deano
Ancient Mariner
I was thinking of an interesting paradox regarding this earlier. As technology progresses thousands of years into the future, one would assume that time travel to the past would someday be achieved. Items brought into the past by travelers would inevitably be left behind, either accidentally or intentionally.
We carbon-date now to determine the age of items and this accepted as a legitimate scientific practice. It also rather efficiently puts to rest the argument of the Earth being 6000 years old. What would the results be, however, of discovering and carbon dating an item from the future that was left behind in the past?
I have no idea? Though, time travel (according to Einstein) is one-way only, so it may explain why it has never happened or been discovered.
Except for this guy:
http://timetraveler.ytmnd.com
Except for this guy:
http://timetraveler.ytmnd.com
Onhell said:
Only in the context of prayer. In conversation in the Berber language, it means "like that".
Dr. Eddies Wingman
Brighter than thousand_suns
LooseCannon said:
I can add that on a Norwegian discussion board I spend some time posting at, the science forum as well as the "religions and wievs on life" forum are often spammed down by certain posters who support creationism. For a long time, these posters enjoyed to refer to Hovind or his website drdino.com ... and even though some other posters, including me, took some time to shred Hovind's arguments to pieces, the very same argument would be used a few days later.
People like Hovind make me think of those preachers that are mocked in "Holy Smoke" as well as in Metallica's "Leper Messiah". People who claim to teach the Christian gospel and talking about love for others, but who are most passionate about their own savings account. Bleh.
SneakySneaky
Trooper
Well those were some funny 27 minutes.
Surely, there are a lot of gaps in the evolution theory and it may not even be true. After all, a big part of it is based on speculation that can be proven right of false sometime in the future. I can accept someone who won't believe it to be true due to such gaps. But, people (like those in the video) who will prefer to believe the Bible version of creation instead of evolution are at the very least naive, not to say stupid. I've begun reading the bible and I must say the creation story is hilarious. There are two different versions of the creation intertwined in it for God's sake (oh no, I used god's name in vain, I am a blasphemer
). At first it says god created the plants, then the animals and man was the last creation. Afterwards you read that God planted man in Eden where plants grew, and then animals were created to keep man company. So who was created first??? 
I've got another question, rather rhetorical I guess. Since there has to be a creator, who created him?? And who created the creator and so on, ' till you get mad and go drink all the Jack Daniel's there is in the house
. If a beginning really has to exist, then why can't that beginning not include a god/creator, but rather start off with earth and nothing else?
Surely, there are a lot of gaps in the evolution theory and it may not even be true. After all, a big part of it is based on speculation that can be proven right of false sometime in the future. I can accept someone who won't believe it to be true due to such gaps. But, people (like those in the video) who will prefer to believe the Bible version of creation instead of evolution are at the very least naive, not to say stupid. I've begun reading the bible and I must say the creation story is hilarious. There are two different versions of the creation intertwined in it for God's sake (oh no, I used god's name in vain, I am a blasphemer
). At first it says god created the plants, then the animals and man was the last creation. Afterwards you read that God planted man in Eden where plants grew, and then animals were created to keep man company. So who was created first??? I've got another question, rather rhetorical I guess. Since there has to be a creator, who created him?? And who created the creator and so on, ' till you get mad and go drink all the Jack Daniel's there is in the house
. If a beginning really has to exist, then why can't that beginning not include a god/creator, but rather start off with earth and nothing else?
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
SneakySneaky said:Well those were some funny 27 minutes.
Surely, there are a lot of gaps in the evolution theory and it may not even be true. After all, a big part of it is based on speculation that can be proven right of false sometime in the future. I can accept someone who won't believe it to be true due to such gaps. But, people (like those in the video) who will prefer to believe the Bible version of creation instead of evolution are at the very least naive, not to say stupid. I've begun reading the bible and I must say the creation story is hilarious. There are two different versions of the creation intertwined in it for God's sake (oh no, I used god's name in vain, I am a blasphemer
I've got another question, rather rhetorical I guess. Since there has to be a creator, who created him?? And who created the creator and so on, ' till you get mad and go drink all the Jack Daniel's there is in the house
God you ask some stupid questions
As far as the creation stories, the reason we have two is because each author wanted to point out something different. If you had read the first one carefully before he creates the seas, plants man, whatever, he creates day and night and thus the first day... he creates TIME, which means he stands outside of time, he is eternal, always was, is and will be. As for the point of each creation story I think the first is just to show man as the master of earth while the second one is about Adam and Eve specifically, the couple and their unity... if I remember correctly anyway.
SneakySneaky
Trooper
You know I wasn't really asking anyone here. My questions were targeted to those who believe this story to be true. That's why I pointed those things out. I realize that the authors wanted to say different things. But if someone believes that this actually happened, then he should try and check out those contradictions.Onhell said:God you ask some stupid questions
As far as the creation stories, the reason we have two is because each author wanted to point out something different. If you had read the first one carefully before he creates the seas, plants man, whatever, he creates day and night and thus the first day... he creates TIME, which means he stands outside of time, he is eternal, always was, is and will be. As for the point of each creation story I think the first is just to show man as the master of earth while the second one is about Adam and Eve specifically, the couple and their unity... if I remember correctly anyway.
God, Onhell, sure, you understand that it's allegory, but try telling a fundy Christian that. No, they believe in the absolute word of God. Not you Catholics who have a Pope who is allowed to alter that, and who has never, ever done so for political or personal reasons.
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
LooseCannon said:
hmmm Second Vatican mean anything? Or the council of Trent? Nicea? Each had a profound change in liturgy and belief. Or how about we used to take a literal interpretation of the Bible and now we don't and we're all evolution (and science in general) friendly?
Sure there are core values that haven't, won't or will still take a long time to change, but for the most part, A Catholic today has little in common with on of the even a hundred years ago.
@sneaky: I knew you were being a bit of a smart ass, but not that you were just asking to no one in particular, my bad.
Dude, I know. What I am saying is that a Catholic is far more reasonable when it comes to Biblical scripture than, say, Ted Haggart - despite the abuse of the Bible in the past.
One other note, on creation in the bible, it is total plagarism. Maybe not absolute, and I can't find the references at the moment, but during a religion class in college, we spoke of the MANY creation stories that predated the one in the old testament. I think the Romans had one, but there were others, from 'pagan' religions that were robbed to make the biblical version.
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
LooseCannon said:
oooooh, dagnabit man! you know my sense of humor is not present among religious discussions!
@wasted: The creation story isn't, that I know of, but Noah, Samson and Delilah, and even Goliath as a "giant" are indeed old ideas. The Greek flood story can be found in The Metamorphosis. Thre are also older stories of wise men similar to Solomon. The story of the two women claiming the same child as theirs appears in Chinese folklore as well....
Dr. Eddies Wingman
Brighter than thousand_suns
Onhell said:
... as well as in Seinfeld, except the child is replaced with a woman's bicycle
Actually, the creation story is, but I just can't find my references. I was in a church service recently where those stories were referenced. In some of them, the names are similar, or even the same. I really wish I could find my notes on that! I should have paid more attention to the service, but it was into the second hour and incense was burning my eyes... I really thought he was referencing a Roman creation myth, I'll look for it.
Ok, I should edit: The only part that i remember being similar were the original humans, Adam and Eve. The rest of creation was not exactly the same, but the names of the 'first man and woman' were the same in one culture, and just a little different in another. I will be digging in my old notebooks to see if I can find any info.
Ok, I should edit: The only part that i remember being similar were the original humans, Adam and Eve. The rest of creation was not exactly the same, but the names of the 'first man and woman' were the same in one culture, and just a little different in another. I will be digging in my old notebooks to see if I can find any info.
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
You should check your notes or ask your pastor, because "Adam" means "Man" in Hebrew so I doubt the Roman character had the same name...
What I remember being similar is the Greek idea of decent. You had the Age of Titans, then Gold, Silver, Copper and then the Age of Man, each less "glorious" than the last. In the Bible this is reflected by the characters in the story living shorter lives through the books. Like Noah lives 600 years, but his children only 400 and his grandchildren only 200, etc. (the ages are obviously only examples).
But you've peaked my interest.
What I remember being similar is the Greek idea of decent. You had the Age of Titans, then Gold, Silver, Copper and then the Age of Man, each less "glorious" than the last. In the Bible this is reflected by the characters in the story living shorter lives through the books. Like Noah lives 600 years, but his children only 400 and his grandchildren only 200, etc. (the ages are obviously only examples).
But you've peaked my interest.
