International creationism

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
If evolution is a fact what a curious method for God to use in creating the universe.

not as curious as leaving round evidence that the Earth is much older than it is.

Or telling how it actually happened to someone and expect people to believe it 4000 years later

[Lincoln]

People seem to use whatever definition that suits their side of the argument. That is one reason why I seldom enter into the debates anymore. We spend the first 200 posts arguing semantics. And loingurger if I offended you back then I apologize. But thanks for posting that link because I am not going to go over that debate again here. There is a good book on the subject that I suggest to anyone who is interested in chaos theory, self organization and the like: A Case against Accident and Self Organization by Dean Overman

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by loinburger


Hey, I remember that meaningful information debate! It was fun for awhile, but ultimately it left a sour taste in my mouth. Slander indeed.

Oh please don't go there. You'll bring that dreadful Ethelred back. One of you is bad but the presence of the both of you would be quite intolerable

[Lincoln]

A Case Against Accident and Self Organization

[loinburger]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
If evolution is a fact what a curious method for God to use in creating the universe.

Are you claiming to know the mind of God? If not, then why does it matter that you believe His methods to be "curious"?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Oh please don't go there. You'll bring that dreadful Ethelred back. One of you is bad but the presence of the both of you would be quite intolerable

Indeed, if nothing is more intolerable to you than having somebody disagree with you, then having two people disagree with you would be even worse!

[Dr Strangelove]

How could Australia import creationism from America? Australia's immigration laws are among the toughest in the western world. For an American to become an Australian citizen he would have to be a multimillionaire. There aren't that many ultra-rich who are also creationists. If a native Australian fundamentalist plagerized creationist propaganda published by an American that is not the same as importing the movement from the USA.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by loinburger


Indeed, if nothing is more intolerable to you than having somebody disagree with you, then having two people disagree with you would be even worse!

Oh no, its not the disagreement that bothers. It's the fear and foaming at the mouth that the two of you exhibt at any mention of God that I shudder at.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by jimmytrick


Oh no, its not the disagreement that bothers. It's the fear and foaming at the mouth that the two of you exhibt at any mention of God that I shudder at.

I guess you haven't met Jack the Bodiless yet.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Oh no, its not the disagreement that bothers. It's the fear and foaming at the mouth that the two of you exhibt at any mention of God that I shudder at.

No wonder I always have trouble debating with reasonable theists like ckweb and November Adam! Oh wait, no, I don't seem to have any trouble with them at all, apparently I only have trouble with the theists who love to resort to the use of ad hominems and the preaching of Hellfire, and who claim to know the mind of God.

[GePap]

Let me ask a simple question:

Regardless of how you think the Universe and Life begun (with or without God), does anyone here dispute any of the following:

The age of earth, according to current geological theory;
The workings of sexual and natural selection (just the everyday workings, like how pesticide resistent bugs come into being, according to this model);
Models of how genetics work, and genes are passed down from x to y generations.

I ask this to find out who here fit the basic Gudanovian definition of a creationist (believes God created) vs. the innitially assumed hard-core literal intepretation of bible and full repudiation of the Theory of evolution?

The Most important aspect of this being the origin of Man: Must man have been created specifically by God, as in the Bible, or did Man come about through a process (wether the process is God driven or not) in time?

Personally, i go with the mainstream of scientific thought on all counts, and I do not believe in the existence of some individual sentient conciousness known as 'God'. What about the rest of you?

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by GePap
Let me ask a simple question:

Regardless of how you think the Universe and Life begun (with or without God), does anyone here dispute any of the following:

The age of earth, according to current geological theory;
The workings of sexual and natural selection (just the everyday workings, like how pesticide resistent bugs come into being, according to this model);
Models of how genetics work, and genes are passed down from x to y generations.

I ask this to find out who here fit the basic Gudanovian definition of a creationist (believes God created) vs. the innitially assumed hard-core literal intepretation of bible and full repudiation of the Theory of evolution?

The Most important aspect of this being the origin of Man: Must man have been created specifically by God, as in the Bible, or did Man come about through a process (wether the process is God driven or not) in time?

Personally, i go with the mainstream of scientific thought on all counts, and I do not believe in the existence of some individual sentient conciousness known as 'God'. What about the rest of you?

I personally believe all of the proved portions of evolution including the adaptation of organisms to their environment and variation that enables quite dramatic changes in life. Even the "evolution" of a frog from a tadpole is amazing regardless of the theory of evolution. There is no denying that dramatic possibilities of variation and adaptation exist within creation however it started.

As far as the creation of man goes, there is no contradiction between observed reality and the Bible. But that is a topic for another thread. The idea that all of life evolved from a single cell however is pure speculation and a statement of faith. One God has one signature on all of life. That was discovered about half a decade with the insight into DNA. Some say that that proves all of life came from one cell which is fine but that is no less faith than my opinion that it came from one God, especially in light of other evidence that refutes the concept of self organization of information.

Both sides of the dabate are led to metaphysics, one side however at least admits as much.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I'll bite.

The Bible describes a process. In that process a span of time (6 days onthe 7th he rested.)

Realistically speaking most people get hung up on that time frame. Those days are arbitrary (IMHO) and are not a 24hr period. They refer to time period that God feels important. (Matter of fact all through the Bible prophesy uses metaphoric time measures to predict the coming of Jesus appearances 1 and 2.)

That being said God in the beginning portion of these "days" set up the rules of science and nature that ultimately allowed the formation of matter, the aglomeration proteins to form life, and ultimately the statistical probability of natural selection that makes an intelligent species more likely to survive and flourish.

The statement God made man in his own image is often used to attribute a specific set of visual imagery to the reader. Yet even today the word image has taken on new concepts as image refers to all the information on a hard drive etc not necessarily a photograph. But morevoer the genetic makeup or even more fundamental than that the sub atomic structuring of man and matter. Perhaps it refers to the ability to think and reason. (which in my case may be a bit of a stretch )

Finally I look at the last part. On the 7th day He rested. After the laws of the universe were established no more Divine intervention is required except for his favorite peoples/tribe(s) as He does like to keep in touch from time to time.


Anyway I see no real disconnect between the two that can't be resolved.

Finally, the answer God continues to give Adam is that Adam was not capable of understanding the true nature of God. We have yet to come up with a G.U.T. so, so far He has us there.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
I'll bite.

The Bible describes a process. In that process a span of time (6 days onthe 7th he rested.)

Realistically speaking most people get hung up on that time frame. Those days are arbitrary (IMHO) and are not a 24hr period. They refer to time period that God feels important. (Matter of fact all through the Bible prophesy uses metaphoric time measures to predict the coming of Jesus appearances 1 and 2.)

The problem here is that the "process" described in the Bible is distinctly inaccurate in terms of its order, and in another section the Bible contradicts even itself on the order in which God "created" things. Science and Creationism do not mesh under this qualification either, alas.

In order to be a Creationist who believes in evolution, one would have to stipulate that Genesis is factually wrong one way or another.

[Ironikinit]

Types of creationism

Twentieth-century creationists follow many paths. The young earth creationists believe in a single, special creation that occurred only several thousand years ago. They are the defenders of the most strictly literal biblical view.

Old earth creationists also believe in a single, special creation, but believe it took place billions of years ago.

Day-age and gap creationists believe that the present universe came about through stages of creation, such as would have occurred if the seven "days" of Genesis were actually seven very long ages (day-age), or if there were long gaps between the days of creation (gap).

The Theory of Abrupt Appearance contends that everything in the universe appeared suddenly in its current form, without predecessors. Abrupt Appearance is the doctrine of creation science without mention of the Creator--an attempt to skirt the First Amendment which does not allow advocacy of religion in the public school classroom.

[Other euphemisms to disguise attempts to bring religious views into the science curriculum include arguments against evolution, alternative theories, balanced treatment, intelligent design theory, and irreducible complexity.]

In all the above cases, creationists deny the possibility that one kind of organism can evolve into another. None of these forms of creationism can be reconciled with scientific evidence from biology, geology, biochemistry, paleontology, biogeography, embyrology, and many other relevant fields. According to Gallup polls, about 44 percent of Americans believe in a strict biblical creationist view.

Theistic evolution, accepted by most major religious groups and 40 percent of Americans, states that God is the Creator, but that He works through the process of evolution, as revealed through modern science. With this approach, there is no necessary conflict between religion and acceptance of evolution as a scientific idea, and so it is not surprising that many people of great faith accept the theory of evolution. [Source: National Center for Science Education]

A pretty good essay IMO, providing background information, is the source of the above. http://www.loudoun.net/mainstream/Ed...n.htm#response