First of all I want to ask for constructive thoughts only. Personally, creationism is very low on my list of possible beginnings for the universe (however I try to keep an open mind and leave it open as a possibility). I have debated this with many people on many discussion forums and have never reached what I feel is an adequite conclusion. I was thinking about this issue this weekend and I realized something, but I am not sure if it supports creationism or not. The current popular believe amongst creationist is that the universe is an estimated 6000 years old. Scientist...no, people have found evidence that points to an Earth much older than that (not to mention the observed age of the universe). Examples of this include fossiles, geological formations, etc... For the sake of arguement I am going to take one that cannot be disputed; The age of stars. We have witnessed the death of stars that should have lived millions of years. How can this be if the universe is only 6000 years old? I have been told that God created these things in their current state, or to be more precise, whatever state they were in 6000 years ago. My question, if God can create the universe with a history, or mid-history, what is to prove "He" did not create the universe a second ago, and gave everything the history "He" wanted it to have? Every second that goes by could be in effect "the beginning of Time". I am having a hard time realizing the implications of this. Does it support Creationist or...the other guys? - KitNyx
Well I can tell you this much. Funny part is, I trick every Christian and prove that they think their own religion is wrong. So listen up Christians! (this has worked on everyone i asked so far) Me: Hey do you believe in dinosaurs? Christian: Sure! I've seen the bones in a museum. Me: Oh, well that's odd because I believe you were trying to convince me that the world is only 6,000 years old. Don't you think dinosaurs are a tad older? (if you come with a direct approach such as "Scientists found rocks that are millions of years old." The people that I talked to will always immediatly call the scientists liars and they want to hear none of it.
i thought the bible was supposed to be written for us? why would it then say six days if it didn't mean six days?
If the universe was 6000 years old, how could we see stars that are more than 6000 light years away? Booyah! Yeah I know, shooting fish in a bucketPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The implication of a six day week and one day of rest is evident. Unless you don't believe in weeks, it's not a problem. The emphasis is that God created, and that we should remember it each day of our lives. If you remember that, it's irrelevant whether the "days" were literal days or not - but that they were meant literally is without question.
You're joking, right? Midrash cannot be in the text, since it is by definition an interpretation of the text. The gematria is itself supposed to be implicit in creation, so it only has a reinforcing and representative role, not a decisive one. ("The Gematria for Vav is six. Each Vav represents the six days of creation." Gematria of Bet) I only "know" what the Hebrew scholars understand from the words - that with "days" it means "days", not a "period of time". Whether it was a 'period of time' is not important, since our weeks do not consist out of periods of thousands of years.
Eden...Eden was created mature, correct? What I mean by that is it was created in full bloom; trees were full sized, animals were all adult, etc. If so, then God created these things with a history...dogs knew how to be dogs, cows knew how to be cows, etc...many of the behaviors of these animals are learned from their parents, so God must have simulated those "memories" or imprints in these creatures. Did the number of stars in the sky of Eden increase every year? If the universe was not created mature then this would have been the case. So, back to my question - if God is in the habit of creating mature universes with the illusion of a history, how do we know we were not created on second ago? - KitNyx
Mature Eden? Originally posted by KitNyx ---------- Eden...Eden was created mature, correct? What I mean by that is it was created in full bloom; trees were full sized, animals were all adult, etc. If so, then God created these things with a history...dogs knew how to be dogs, cows knew how to be cows, etc...many of the behaviors of these animals are learned from their parents, so God must have simulated those "memories" or imprints in these creatures. ---------- (The STORY of Eden was written so that Eden appeared to be in full bloom. I don't recall reading about dogs and cows in Eden, although I am for sure that dogs and cows wouldn't have been "cast out" by the God of Eden. Memories are imprinted on generations that follow, so if the story of Eden were true, why did man come along and create the story of the Fall--then future mankind still believed it! If imprinting were true, then there was no need for the Bible. If imprinting were false, then man simply made up the story of the Fall. Since I believe imprinting does occur in the brain, that is why we have unbelievers of the Bible stories--they contradict what has been imprinted in our cellular memory which passes down through the ages. Those who believe these Bible stories are denying their rightful heritage of past generations. They are creating conflict in their minds. Perhaps they're trying to create their own kind of imprinting cellular memory. But, they're wrong. Our memory has already been imprinted from billions of years ago--not just a simple 6,000 years.) ---------- Did the number of stars in the sky of Eden increase every year? If the universe was not created mature then this would have been the case. ---------- (If are history goes back only 6,000 years, just think what the Earth would look like! Maybe we'd still be in an ice age or still be making crude tools. I don't know. Maybe there'd be no Grand Canyon or LaBrea Tar Pits, no Painted Desert or Redwood trees. I really don't know, these are just hypothetical examples. But the Earth would be different. But to answer the question above, 6,000 years ago, the Earth would have been in full bloom.) ---------- So, back to my question - if God is in the habit of creating mature universes with the illusion of a history, how do we know we were not created on second ago? ---------- (Time is relative. In the greater scheme of the universe, it's quite possible that we've only been around a couple of seconds, but since we are also made up of spiritual energy, we've been here since the beginning, and that was a heck of a long time earlier than Eden.)
Even more confusing is why he would create all this history that includes all the evdience needed to show that it all arose from evolution.
No denyin' evolution Originally posted by Cris ---------- Even more confusing is why he would create all this history that includes all the evdience needed to show that it all arose from evolution. ---------- (True. What I want to find out more about are these 4 forces of energy that physics hasn't identified. My perception of "god" is simply a force of energy that created the universe. I don't even like the name "god." It's misleading. I don't believe in religion, I do believe in quantum physics.)
KitNyx wrote: There are many flavors of creationists, some who actually believe in evolution. Actually the 6,000 year old world is a pillar of belief for certain creationists usually referred to as YECs (young earth creationists). These people usually subscribe to a very narrow and literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation. The YECs can trace their history to Bishop Ussher, who somehow managed to establish that God created the earth on Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC...... in fact you'll probably find posters on this very board whose faith is so weak that without a literal interpretation they're lost. If you're interested in that kind of rhetoric read more here: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/ussher.htm There is nothing in the biblical text that demands the reader interpret that God must have done the creating in a direct and instantaneous manner, over a literal twenty four hour-a-day, six day period. If that were the case one would question how the solar days applied to day one and two since the sun wasn't created until day three. Throughout the Bible, God's activity often gets carried out through "natural" processes (like the wind that caused the sea to part for Moses), and there is no reason this could not be the case here. In fact, one could make the case that the "let the earth bring forth" of 1:11 and 1:24 and "let the waters bring forth" of 1:20, along with Adam's "dust of the earth" origin (2:7), point to God's use of natural, perhaps evolutionary, processes. Some individuals enjoy placing all theists into a box labelled "dumb fundie" and for good reason in some instances, but there is a long list of scientists, explorers and everyday people who somehow amazingly balance their religious and scientific viewpoints without succumbing to lies and trickery. The entire battle between evolution and creation can be boiled down to a philosophical one. God or no God? Chance vs. Divine Purpose? Cash vs. Charge? Decaf or a double shot of espresso? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Here is some suggested reading: "The Galileo Connection" by Charles Hummel "God Did It, But How?" by Robert Fischer
Re: No denyin' evolution They are: Electromagnetic, Gravity, Strong Nuclear, Weak Nuclear. I'm not sure why you say they haven't been identified though. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html ~Raithere
Re: Re: No denyin' evolution Originally posted by Raithere ---------- They are: Electromagnetic, Gravity, Strong Nuclear, Weak Nuclear. I'm not sure why you say they haven't been identified though. ---------- (I think Cris mentioned something about the 4 yet unidentified forces of energy. Physics was not my best subject in college, so I won't pretend to be an expert or anything. These four forms of energy, even I've heard about and know about. Now I wonder what Cris was talking about?)
M*W, It lookes like you misread my quote. From this thread - http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28171 5th post.
you are kidding right? you don't actually believe that god created the universe in six days, do you? everything you see around you contradicts this belief of yours. it would mean the age of the universe was somewhere between 6000 and 10000 years old. i'm not sure how you can defend this story in your own mind. there is just no way that this can be true.
You're not listening. I said "Whether it was a 'period of time' is not important", but the Bible means six days when it says six days - the purpose isn't to establish an archaelogical record (what use would that have?), but to establish a structure. The structure and order of creation was imposed and systematic, just like the "7 day week" structure of time in our calendars is imposed. It has no natural basis for existing. Remember the Bible describes things that hadn't been observed, using terms that people understood. "Days" didn't exist until the earth had made a full rotation with the sun in place, and there was nobody around to make such an observation during six days of creation. Therefore when it says "days", it means literal days, to be understood as days. It conveys what it intends to convey perfectly, most importantly, that our lives are mini-creations as intended by God.
"There is nothing in the biblical text that demands the reader interpret that God must have done the creating in a direct and instantaneous manner, over a literal twenty four hour-a-day, six day period." - Jenyar This is not true, the Bible clearly states the above to be true. If you begin tearing the Bible apart saying this is true, this is not, this is true, etc...how can you really know that any of it is true? Is it the word of God or not? Personally, I do not know how someone can believe it is the word of God and not believe all of it literally. On the same token, I do not know how someone can believe it is man's interpretation of the word of God without seeing that it would thien be riddled with fallacies, prejudices, superstitions, and delusions. How then can you believe any of it? - KitNyx
Ummm....KitNyx KitNyx wrote: Hey! I object! Jenyar didn't write that, I did. Look again please. KitNyx wrote: Isn't it true that anyone who reads the Bible interprets the information to be either symbolically, historically, metaphorically, allegorically or literally (or in some cases a combination of these) true? Have you not made your own interpretation ie. The ball is in your court.
