But since “creationism” is just a term alluding to a set of beliefs about creation, there may be 687 different religious groups with unique idea about creation. Can each of these then look at the same fossil, geological, and mutation rate evidence, interpret it in such a way that it supports their own customized beliefs, and thus 687 diverse groups walk away confident that their beliefs are the correct ones?
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
6days
New member
Why would God create a puny universe? "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands" Psalm 19:1
As a Christian, the answer to your question is worship...
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...&mid=FF18C5FAD00FAF12BD0EFF18C5FAD00FAF12BD0E
The most logical and scientific explanation /hypothesis, for the origin of matter in the universe is that it was caused by an uncaused cause which existed eternally. That uncaused cause must have unlimited power and supreme intelligence.
6days
New member
Likewise with evolutionism, there may be 687 different and unique secular explanations as to origins of life, first cause, mutation rates etc.
Of those 1374 opposing ideas, there can only be one that is possibly correct.
Interplanner
Well-known member
The material by G&R is THE PRIVILEGED PLANET. Sorry to miss that.
You must be kidding about social decay. I'll let you explain first. Do you really have no idea what agnosticism and secularism have done to our kids, families, money, patriotism?
On aesthetics, it is not always the beauty of it that comes to mind here; many of the 20 or so features G&R are talking about are actually engineering in the form of celestial mechanics and of chemistry, radiation and lightwaves.
If the only elements you have at work are matter and chance and time, then no, I will never accept what you just said. I have seen "Murphy's Law" in natural events too many times to count. Things break down whenever they can. It takes design and sustaining forces to keep them going.
Perhaps if I take one example, you'll see our modern worldview dilemma. There is a theory out there that the earth and moon gained their final form through a collision. A massive object chopped them in half, set them in position and orbit to each other. It's residue is found in the pocking and smattering of the face of the moon. I have never seen a collision that came out so organized, but there it is (the theory). Never mind how drastically this changes absolutely everything that is going on, on earth! Every system changes. (Just look at what is said about the meteor striking the Gulf of Mexico area; it is credited with ending dinosaur life, etc. So imagine splitting the earth. You can pretty much ignore everything the evolutionists say because the "lab table" just got sawed in half and burned.)
But here is the real kicker in terms of worldview. Guess what scientists are calling this theory? "Theia." That is an innovation that puts a feminine gender on the Greek Theos, god. They are so desparate to sneak the god factor in, they have gone with this name.
Good luck to all 'closed system of natural causes and effects' folks with that one. It's nonsense.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Naturalism's back door for god
Naturalism's back door for god
copy
Naturalism's back door for god
copy
Interplanner
Well-known member
Define your terms before you write off a creator. I don't know anyone who rejected a creator once the terms were clarified. this is why Dawkins blurted out his reaction to intelligent design: 'if there is a god, he is infinitely more intelligent than what the theologians have been saying.' Ie, he somehow had a very reduced idea of the infinity of God from whomever he was reading or hearing from. I don't know how that would ever happen from reading the Bible, but he did.
Interplanner
Well-known member
It's not my fantasy. It's theirs. They scotch-taped a god theme on it because it is such a fantasy. It is a complete disruption of the 'lab-table' of evolution for such an event to happen. All theories of evolution would have to have segment A and segment B and completely different explanations for each. What ever existed during A would have been totally disrupted.
This is a bit disappointing to hear.
Your version of reality is one, where your god continuously fiddles with everything through his supernatural powers, even though our understanding of nature elegantly explains all that we see without the need for magic.
Does it mean that you generally don't want to believe in any natural processes without devine intervention?
wow, is this the normal Christian position?, now I'm really confused...
Why would god require any help?
And why is it so difficult to learn that "the devil will challenge us"?
Interplanner
Well-known member
He knew both how much design there was in it, and the impact of it on society if people starting putting themselves in the category of animals, and was hesitant to publish. It was T. Huxley's mandate that he do so, very much against his will. Huxley was also very insensitive about the timing of his demands, because Darwin's oldest daughter had just died.
There's the founder of evolution--TH, a really great guy. Let's kill God, faith, hope, trust, honor; what are you waiting for?
Interplanner
Well-known member
The heavens and the skies are very far from the entire universe, my friend. I emphasised the point of our being the centre of creation vs. the vastness of the entire universe, a point which you did not address...
The phrase you wrote about an "uncaused cause" and what not leaves me a bit consternated as I don't understand any single word, nor the statement as a whole.
Firstly, yes you are correct, there may be as of this moment multiple proposed explanations (though unlikely more than a few), however it's just a matter of time until there is sufficient progress to focus on just one theoretical framework.
Secondly, it's also very possible that none are correct - always remember this option :wave:
All right, one point at a time:
Thanks for the book title, but I still cannot talk about its contents yet...
You are blaming secularism for something that represents your political views, which you haven't shared (yet), so how do you expect me to comment...
From my POV I'd rather be alive today than at any other point in time centuries ago, maybe you disagree and that's fine - but if we have such contradicting worldviews, than I suggest that you explain specifically what you mean.
Natural events (I assume you mean disasters rather) have exactly the same cause as all of the constructive beauty of the world - that is physics and chemistry. Whether you prefer to attribute it to the workings of some "designer" is a matter of your faith. I understand that you don't like the thought that there is no MASTER PLAN in the universe, and of course it's your free choice what you wish to believe.
The only difference between our worldviews is that mine works without resorting to magic.
Theia is neither an invented name, nor the accurate name of the theory in question.
It is in greek mythology the godess of the moon (so therefore the reference, which btw has nothing to do with your god), and the name was given to the proposed planet, which according to this hypothesis collided with the early earth. How exactly the moon was formed is still not certain but it appears that this hypothesis looks promising.
Don't forget that this is an event during a time when there was no life on earth just yet...
And you still haven't answered my question...
Cheers, Duke
I certainly agree, and seeing multiple proposed ways of understanding new evidence is not uncommon in science. But, and I have made this point before, scientists then proceed to the next step, and try to find ways to prove which idea is the correct one (if any).
Several times you have brought up this idea that what evidence means depends on one’s “worldview”, but you always seem to leave it at that, as if that meant the creationist “worldview” was as legitimate as the scientific “worldview”.
In fact, if as you say, there is only one of the opposing ideas “that is possibly correct”, then having a different “worldview” sounds like just a fancy way of saying you think the evidence points to a different conclusion. In the world of science, where the process of clarifying which ideas are correct has long been a central focus, most of creationism’s ideas are coming in third in a two-way race.
Interplanner
Well-known member
If something conflicts with the presupposition of an open system (open to being re-done by an infinite-personal-intelligent Creator) while many natural causes and effects continue, that is my answer to why I do not accept the opposite. The opposite being: a view that it is a closed system.
You are very comfortable with the massive improbabilities of nature. I am not. That is also part of my answer. I cannot seriously go through G&R's material on them and just let it all happen by chance. Nonsense. They couldn't either. They also wrote that material because they realized (mostly through observing the 1996 solar eclipse in India) that these things were meant to be observed. It is our privilege to see them in action, because they glorify God.
Here is how you sound to me: you enjoy a Rembrandt for an hour and then leave saying: "aren't paintbrushes amazing!" Myself, I praise the Artist.
Interplanner
Well-known member
re Theia. it is the assigned name in the discussion in Wikipedia. That means it is used by quite a few scientists to name it.
How can it not be related to God when it's backstory is a god, and when the word is the same root in an innovated feminine gender?
Just the same, I do realize that the concept I'm trying to communicate will be difficult. The modern conception of reality since T. Huxley is that of the absence of anything supernatural. All reality is one kind. It is a closed system of natural causes and effects.
I believe such a view screams in pain for a better explanation, and that is why Darwin was slow to get on board. That was not "politics," that was the ordinary need of humans for trust, hope, honor, virtue. I'm very sorry to hear how alien those are for you.
To try to fit a god factor back in, but not really, a god-name is chosen, in this case, to explain how a random collision like "Theia" and earth can result in conditions perfect for mankind.
In 1994, we saw 8 objects pile into one of our planets. Are we to suppose that this has created conditions for life as complex as ours as well?
There is only a few things that result from random accidents without massive effort to shape them into form and function. They are a "Katrina" result without it.
Interplanner
Well-known member
The surface of the moon shows the aftermath of a random collision; the celestial mechanics of earth and moon do not.
alwight
New member
Insensitive? I don't think so.
Darwin's "Bulldog" TH Huxley simply got the discussion going. Should we be content with accepting a religious presupposition or should we instead dare to attempt to find natural explanations from physical natural evidence alone?
I don't know that Darwin's decision to finally publish actually had that much to do with his daughter's death but getting him to concentrate on his science rather than letting him mull over it may have been best for him personally and the world of science?
Dear Stuart,
It is a fact that some people will experience diseases to cause them to pay for what they've done in a previous life. They could be Hitler or Mussolini, or a supporter of either one. Also, people have to die somehow, so disease it allowed. Satan gets to cause people disease and God only reverses disease at His Own discretion. The devil has to be allowed some things on Earth, like weeds, which is something God gives him. Why are there weeds, just like why is there cystic fibrosis, cancer, COPD, emphysema, heart attacks, etc. People have to die some way, or the Earth would really be overpopulated. Does all of this answer your questions? Some people just reap what they sow and get their just desserts. What they've done in a previous life. Man cannot learn everything in just one lifetime. He has to learn through quite a number of reincarnations. We are learning a lot during this generation. The same way that God lets people be atheistic. God doesn't want them this time around. Maybe they will learn better in their next lifetime.
It does say, "And the REST OF THE DEAD did not LIVE AGAIN until the thousand years were finished." See Rev. 20:5 KJV.
You're going to have to learn what you didn't in this lifetime and hope you learn it in the next lifetime. It's basic knowledge.
Michael
Hi, Michael,
I am doing fine, thanks. I saw an article of interesting news. For the first time, of the students just entering Harvard more of them identify themselves as atheists and agnostics than do the new students who say they are Protestant or Catholic.
Dear Duke,
The reason the Universe is so vast is because there are MANY who have died since Adam and Eve, and when you die, your energy and light gets to live on a star. And when you are a spirit in Heaven, you get to travel to different galaxies to explore and enjoy all of our galaxy and once you've seen that, there is another galaxy to explore and enjoy, and it goes on almost forever. Just like the angels, we are when we die. Notice what is written in Dan. 12:3 KJV. "Those who turn many to righteousness shall be as the stars forever and ever."
Much Love,
Michael
- Status