Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 39

Thread: Creationism

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    2,830
    O.K. To play the Devils Advicate and to allow creationists a chance to be heard (WITHOUT HARRASMENT!) I am starting this to allow all of you creationists out there to post your views and proofs. I want to know some absolute scientific facts, ect. of creationism of the universe (the is a astronomy board after all [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]). No "he said/she said" stuff. I can care less what blah blah said about it. That is not scientific facts. Also for you non-creationists out there if there are any posts that are dead wrong then post a reply, but don't be harsh. Now on with the Games....

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    2,045
    Just for clarification, when you say "Creationist", are you referring strictly to the 6-day belief, or are you extending it to anyone who believes there is a God or other powerful being who created the universe and it doesn't matter how or how long?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    2,830
    any and all versions of "Creationist".

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    153
    If you refuse to narrow your definition of
    creationism, then your topic is to broad to respond to.

    We have seen to many straw men knocked down
    and words being put in people's mouths on all sides of this question - even when people do make an effort to carefully define what they mean. To start such a discussion without specifying a very specific form of creationism or evolutionism to talk about is an exercise in futility.

    I speak from experience on this one. Narrow your topic please, or give up on it. You will get few intelligent responses otherwise.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    375
    Cloudy has a point.

    I could offer an argument that "Man created God" which would fit your request for arguments for creation but is this really what you had in mind ?

    Phobos

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    2,830
    Sorry, i guess it is too vauge, but i was trying to reach as wide a possible group. Mostly i was going into the form of creationism that goes for "God created the heavens and the earth..." kind of creation. For example to evidence for a 10,000 year old universe, ect... like on the other post that went way astray. I am looking for evidence that some superior being (God) created and made the universe. Sorry for the inconvienience and vagueness of the topic.

    I know that this has been talked about on other posts, but so far i have not seen one of them give them a serious chance without being ridiculed, so i am trying to incite a kind and scientific conversation.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    314
    Have you heard of the anthropic principle?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    2,830
    On 2002-08-07 01:11, xriso wrote:
    Have you heard of the anthropic principle?
    Nope, what is it?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    314
    On 2002-08-07 01:25, g99 wrote:
    On 2002-08-07 01:11, xriso wrote:
    Have you heard of the anthropic principle?
    Nope, what is it?
    Well, you've probably heard of Intelligent Design. The anthropic principle is one of the ideas readily used by IDers - that the characteristics of the Universe are just exactly right so that we can have galaxies, stars, planets, and life - intelligent life at that. This link talks about some such characteristics in specific, and of course talks about other interpretations of these fine-tunings.

    If you are looking for proofs of a universe created some thousand years ago, I cannot help you. AiG might be able to.


    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: xriso on 2002-08-07 22:49 ]</font>

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    2,830
    Thaks alot, hat is what i was looking for. I am not looking for proof of a creation of the universe, i am just setting up a forum for discussion of it. But that was a interesting article, thanks.

    G99

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    872
    The "weak" anthropic principle is actually useful, although in a minor way.

    It says, "Wow, we live in a cosmos that is so complex that it can support life-forms so sophisticated that they have the ability to evolve sentience and technology."

    It's kind of a "Oh, wow!" observation. It doesn't predict anything, but it is an observation of hindsight. We are here (hello!) and thus our cosmos is of such a nature to support us.

    The "strong" anthropic principle goes beyond this, and tries to claim that the comos must have been designed to support intelligent life. Most of us reject it.

    The "Ultimate" anthropic principle claims that the cosmos is both necessary and sufficient to support *your* existence as an individual awareness. For instance, the Cuban Missle Crisis could *not* have led to a massive nuclear exchange, because that would have killed *you*, and, since you aren't, in fact, dead, it couldn't have happened....

    Silas

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    561
    How about this:

    1. Everything observed in the universe follows cause and effect.

    2. Observation also indicates that the universe is of finite age.

    3. There is nothing in the universe capable of initially causing it to exist.

    Therefore: the existance of the universe required a cause outside of our concept of reality. This outside entity is the cause, or in other words, the creator.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    5,455
    On 2002-08-08 00:10, traztx wrote:
    How about this:

    1. Everything observed in the universe follows cause and effect.

    2. Observation also indicates that the universe is of finite age.

    3. There is nothing in the universe capable of initially causing it to exist.

    Therefore: the existance of the universe required a cause outside of our concept of reality. This outside entity is the cause, or in other words, the creator.
    Bad logic, sorry. Just because we have an unanswered question, or, an explanation we can't yet conceptualize, (infinity), in no way implies anything about an 'outside entity' or 'creator'.

    You are not providing any evidence as was the initial challenge, only an hypothesis with which you have offered no suggested way of testing.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    314
    On 2002-08-08 00:10, traztx wrote:
    How about this:

    1. Everything observed in the universe follows cause and effect.

    2. Observation also indicates that the universe is of finite age.

    3. There is nothing in the universe capable of initially causing it to exist.

    Therefore: the existance of the universe required a cause outside of our concept of reality. This outside entity is the cause, or in other words, the creator.
    As I'm sure many people will love to point out to you, it's hard to play with causality on the boundary of time.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    628
    The anthropic principle was i think used to predict that the three body process of fusing helium into carbon needed to have a resonant cross section. His reasoning was along the lines of we are here and are made up of heavy elements. If this reaction didnt involve this resonance then there would be less heavy elements and we wouldnt be here.
    Its seems it can be useful. The strong principle always seemed to me to get cause and effect round the wrong way. Things are the way they are because you are here to ask the question rather than you`re here because things are the way they are.


    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jumbo on 2002-08-08 06:22 ]</font>

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    16
    As I'm interpreting all that has been put forth thus far, these creationists seem to believe that evolution negates the presence of God as the creator. Then they try to fit the universe into 10000 years of evolution with a few unsupported scientific theories.

    If God created the universe 10000 years ago, and there is evidence of the evolution of time since then, wouldn't these creationists' beliefs be supporting evolution?

    Basically they're confusing the Bible as a scientific text rather than a moral guide for living.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    561
    On 2002-08-08 03:29, beskeptical wrote:
    On 2002-08-08 00:10, traztx wrote:
    How about this:

    1. Everything observed in the universe follows cause and effect.

    2. Observation also indicates that the universe is of finite age.

    3. There is nothing in the universe capable of initially causing it to exist.

    Therefore: the existance of the universe required a cause outside of our concept of reality. This outside entity is the cause, or in other words, the creator.
    Bad logic, sorry. Just because we have an unanswered question, or, an explanation we can't yet conceptualize, (infinity), in no way implies anything about an 'outside entity' or 'creator'.

    You are not providing any evidence as was the initial challenge, only an hypothesis with which you have offered no suggested way of testing.
    Sorry if it was incomplete. I thought I'd help the topic along by putting out something more specific so we can have something to discuss. Without a specific idea, the topic was somewhat chaotic. I didn't have time to flesh it out... was just throwing something out.

    Anyway, to look at this further...

    The evidence for #1 (cause and effect) is everything we can observe. It can be demonstrated anytime anywhere.

    I don't know all the evidence for #2 (the universe being of finite age). Are the spectrum surveys indicating expansion debatable or conclusive?

    I agree #3 is a leap. I couldn't think of a good way of putting it at the time. I'll have to give it some thought. The point I'm trying to make is an expansion on #1. Not only do we observe cause and effect everywhere, but the order is consistant. Cause comes before effect.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    856
    Sorry to bring up Nibiru again, but it again offers an explanation for something...

    Just want to point out that IF Sitchin's transalations are correct, the Sumerians wrote that when the first wave of Anunnaki reached Earth approx 450,000 years ago, it took 6 days to clear and build their first base. On the 7th day, the leader Enki (Ea) declared that it would be a day of rest and that from then on, decreed that every 7th day would be a day of rest.

    Sounds an awful lot like Genesis.

    Regardless of Nibiru, if we can agree the bible is not an original document, then what was it based on? Whether it is Sitchin's translations or not, it most likely can be traced back to Sumerian origin. What did the Sumerian originals say?

    If the young universe theory is based on the bible, and the bible is a rewriting of compilations of Sumerian (or another civ's) texts, what did the originals say? If the originals show the 7-day-creation theory to have meant something else (as in Sitchin's translation), then the whole young universe theory is baseless.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    2,830
    Great job everyone, this is exactly what should be happening, scientific discussion of a hot topic. Great job !!

  20. #20
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    561
    On 2002-08-08 14:01, g99 wrote:
    Great job everyone, this is exactly what should be happening, scientific discussion of a hot topic. Great job !!
    I'm curious what your opinion/position is. Care to tell? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    2,830
    Sure [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]. I really have no clue what is right. But personally i believe in "the big bang" and the slow, deliberate evolution of the universe. First It started out with simple atoms, getting more complex with the forming and dieing of each star untill you reach today. I truthfully do not belive in creation, but i do not hold out that it is impossible. I still think it has a possiblility of being correct. The same chance as every theory does. (altought some theories have more evidence in their favor).
    I am a Antropologist in training (or at least in a half-year i will be officially one) and it has been drilled into us to take a outside observation and view everything from the other persons viewpoint and not your own. So addding onto this i have made my own personal view that everyone has a chance of being correct in their views. That is why i am making this discuaaion. I not only doing it for reasons to start a scientific discussion, but also to see what everyone else thinks of the issue.

    Is there a creator, maybe not, maybe yes, but there is still time to find out the true answer.

    Where did the original stuff for the big bang come from? I have absolutly no clue. For that i do lean for a more spiritual matter (i am somewhat religious). I beilive that the creator (god?) made the original matter and let the universe do its own thing. But again this happened billions of years ago, not 10,000 (in my viewpoint). But don't let my views hinder your own, it is just my theories.
    (yes i am very confused between spiritual and science, but i am slowly figuring it out [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img])

    Anything else you want to know?

    P.S. I won't be able to answer for the next week and a half. I am going on a long needed vacation with my girlfirend to Washington D.C.. So i will check the posts and answer then. So don't be offended if you don't get anything back for a week or so, ok? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] Later!!!

    _________________
    "The chickens is coming!!!"
    "Watch out for falling coconuts!!"
    The creationist dogma: "If you can't prove it I must be right"

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: g99 on 2002-08-08 15:13 ]</font>

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    314
    On 2002-08-08 11:55, Monkey Boy wrote:
    As I'm interpreting all that has been put forth thus far, these creationists seem to believe that evolution negates the presence of God as the creator. Then they try to fit the universe into 10000 years of evolution with a few unsupported scientific theories.

    If God created the universe 10000 years ago, and there is evidence of the evolution of time since then, wouldn't these creationists' beliefs be supporting evolution?
    Ah, but it isn't that simple. They aren't really against all evolution (change with respect to time), but rather a historical idea known as "The origin of (almost all) species through descent with modification", which is conveniently abbreviated to "evolution". The other historical idea would be "The origin of (all/most/many) species through direct introduction (or small variations thereof)", which is conveniently abbreviated to "creation".

  23. #23
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    2,045
    On 2002-08-08 15:07, g99 wrote:
    P.S. I won't be able to answer for the next week and a half. I am going on a long needed vacation with my girlfirend to Washington D.C.. So i will check the posts and answer then. So don't be offended if you don't get anything back for a week or so, ok? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] Later!!!
    Quick diverge.
    g99 - (If you read this before you leave)
    I live about 1/2 hour drive from D.C. If you need any advise or suggestions or info or anything, you can e-mail me and I'll see if I can help. I do highly recommend you go to the Air & Space museum. They've got a really cool program going on in the planetarium. Haven't had the chance to see it yet, but I plan on it ASAP.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    16
    On 2002-08-08 15:24, xriso wrote:
    On 2002-08-08 11:55, Monkey Boy wrote:
    As I'm interpreting all that has been put forth thus far, these creationists seem to believe that evolution negates the presence of God as the creator. Then they try to fit the universe into 10000 years of evolution with a few unsupported scientific theories.

    If God created the universe 10000 years ago, and there is evidence of the evolution of time since then, wouldn't these creationists' beliefs be supporting evolution?
    Ah, but it isn't that simple. They aren't really against all evolution (change with respect to time), but rather a historical idea known as "The origin of (almost all) species through descent with modification", which is conveniently abbreviated to "evolution". The other historical idea would be "The origin of (all/most/many) species through direct introduction (or small variations thereof)", which is conveniently abbreviated to "creation".
    Good point, but what then is their explanation for the Bible containing multiple creation stories? It is so difficult to the Bible completely literal because at many times it contradicts itself. Also, to take the Bible as a direct historical/scientific text, one needs to clarify which interpretation is being used.

    It's really a collection of many books over a long period of time that has had multiple translations/mistranslations. One very good example is the story of Moses parting the Red Sea. If you actually go back to the original Hebrew text, it says that the breath of God parted the Reed Sea, not the Red Sea. The Reed Sea is to the north of the Red Sea and is actually rather marsh-like. So the physcial concept of wind drying it out in order to make a path to cross is rather plausible. Unfortunately the translation into Greek or Latin mistook the Hebrew, which lead to later translations -- mostly from the Latin, such as the King James -- carrying the same misinterpretations and creating new ones of their own.

    Until these types of points can be solved and a clear, none contradicting interpretation be made from the Bible, there can be no ground to stand on to support any claims of the Bible as a scientific text.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    872
    On 2002-08-08 16:06, Monkey Boy wrote:
    Until these types of points can be solved and a clear, none contradicting interpretation be made from the Bible, there can be no ground to stand on to support any claims of the Bible as a scientific text.
    I think that we're focusing on those who used to be labelled "scientific creationists." The point is that, although many of them do believe the Bible is literally true, don't depend upon it for their key arguments. They adopted the forms of science in what Isaac Asimov once referred to as "The Judo Argument." i.e., if science once threw them for a fall, they want to use science right back.

    They know that faith alone is of no weight in science -- just as science alone carries no weight in matters of faith.

    Of course, the wise person knows which is which...

    Silas

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,570
    I was going to avoid being dragged into this discussion but YOU GUYs just GOADED me and pushed all my argument buttons. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img] So here's my 3.1416 cents worth. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

    In my opinion it's rather pointless to claim humanity knows anything one way or the other. Up until 50 odd years ago, we missed 99.9999998% of what goes on in the universe simply because we were in sensate to it. In the past 50 odd years, I estimate, that we have improved our sensory capabilities by a whole order of magnitude. So that means that we now miss 99.999998% of what goes on in the universe.

    Given my crude and unscientific statistics, my opinion is that the intelligent elite of humanity, know as close to absolutely nothing as is humanly possible. I don't mean to sound pessimistic, just pragmatic. I really do enjoy astronomy and other scientific endevours.

    The way I look at it, just because we've examined a grain of sand, it doesn't mean we know whether we're in a beach or desert. (or both)
    Given that the Bible(s) was written by a very primitive culture, I'm inclined to believe the scientists more than the shamans. I should probably mention that I hold them in about equivelent esteem.

    Shields Up! Ready for evassive manuvers! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif[/img]

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    721
    On 2002-08-08 19:32, Russ wrote:
    In my opinion it's rather pointless to claim humanity knows anything one way or the other. Up until 50 odd years ago, we missed 99.9999998% of what goes on in the universe simply because we were in sensate to it. In the past 50 odd years, I estimate, that we have improved our sensory capabilities by a whole order of magnitude. So that means that we now miss 99.999998% of what goes on in the universe.
    Apart from the error in your math, how could one possibly estimate the percentage of all knowledge we possess without knowing how much there is to know. I don't share your pessimistic view of the state of human knowledge, although I concede that like everyone else, I don't know how much we don't yet know. I'd guess we know a lot more than 10 times as much about the universe as we knew 50 years ago, though. Quasars, pulsars, planets orbiting other stars, red shift, solar winds, star formation, black holes etc etc are all areas where we've gone from nothing, or very little to a substantial, if incomplete body of knowledge in the past half century.

    I, for one, am thrilled that there is still a universe of exploration and learning ahead of us. Imagine the boredom if one knew "everything".

    Given that the Bible(s) was written by a very primitive culture, I'm inclined to believe the scientists more than the shamans. I should probably mention that I hold them in about equivelent esteem.
    Which only shows that you fit somewhere on the spectrum of human opinion between those for whom scripture is inerrant and science is wrong and those who see "belief" as ignorance and science as the only reality.
    What was your point?

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    872
    DaveC: what was the error in his math?

    Silas

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    79
    On 2002-08-09 15:24, Silas wrote:
    DaveC: what was the error in his math?

    Silas
    An order of magnitude is a factor of ten.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    872
    On 2002-08-09 19:41, Josh wrote:
    On 2002-08-09 15:24, Silas wrote:
    DaveC: what was the error in his math?

    Silas
    An order of magnitude is a factor of ten.
    Um... Yeah... And 1 - 99.9999998% is one tenth of 1 - 99.999998% -- i.e., we used to know only 2*10^-9 of the universe, but now we know 2*10^-8 -- a whole order of magnitude more....

    I think he got the math right, if not necessarily the correct assessment of human knowledge and ignorance...

    Silas

    edited because of an error in *MY* math!


    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Silas on 2002-08-09 19:55 ]</font>

Similar Threads

  1. creationism
    By slotdrag in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 171
    Last Post: 2006-Feb-24, 06:34 PM
  2. Creationism: Why?
    By The Supreme Canuck in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 179
    Last Post: 2006-Feb-06, 12:13 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •