Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Then what is the plural in "These faiths were created for the sole purpose of giving humans the belief that they matter or have value in this universe." ??I think he means that evolution poses questions that can potentially be answered. Religion, by contrast and in a very real sense, posits answers that cannot be questioned.
Hmm, yes. But I don't want to acknowledge the mind-shattering conclusion that an atheist is calling evolutionary theory a religion! My wee mind cannae take it.Then what is the plural in "These faiths were created for the sole purpose of giving humans the belief that they matter or have value in this universe." ??It looks too much like a more poetic way of saying "Evo Is Religion".
I say let's wait and see if said atheist comes back and clarifies thingsHmm, yes. But I don't want to acknowledge the mind-shattering conclusion that an atheist is calling evolutionary theory a religion! My wee mind cannae take it.
Maybe 'these faiths' is a catchall for the plethora of Creationist beliefs? After all, evolutionary theory wasn't created to give humans the illusion of value and meaning (though, admittedly, he doesn't have to be telling the truth...)
Do you honestly believe humans are descended from mud-men and rib-women?Do you honestly think you and your family are the result of space combusting?
Do you honestly believe humans are descended from mud-men and rib-women?
It is a piece of text. I daresay the 'proof' is in the fact that you make the a priori assumption that the text of the English Bible (or, at least, Genesis 2) is literally true. Thus, it is not a proof at all: you ultimately just assume Creationism is true.GENESS 2:15-22
1. This is all the proof I need to believe in creationism
Why? We are the ones coming up with medicine and computers. Exegesis hasn't advanced technology one iota. Why, then, do you feel sorry for us?and I'm really sorry(genuinely) for people who dont believe this.
Nevertheless, we can deduce a plethora of facts and figures about the world by empiracle deduction (i.e., we can do science to it). Guess what we find: Biblical literalism does not depict the world we live in. Go figure.I honestly dont think God created our minds to have all the knowledge He can have, we will most likely never know exactly how the world was made, and its obviously not even that big of a deal if God didnt put it in the bible any more than Genesis.
"We are the ones coming up with medicine and computers."
Are you really trying to say that there has not been one scientist who ever invented or researched anything who also believed in the existence of God?
Not at all. Most of the greatest scientists were, after all, religious. Let us not forget the Islamic Golden Age, or Newton's forays into alchemy."We are the ones coming up with medicine and computers."
Are you really trying to say that there has not been one scientist who ever invented or researched anything who also believed in the existence of God?
And there are great many more who would agree with it. But so what? Debate isn't a numbers game."Of course not. What he is saying is that Creationism hasn't added one iota to human knowledge."
There are a great many theologians who would disagree with this statement, as would many others in various fields.
True. But aside from being a case study in ad hoc theology, I fail to see the contribution. Indeed, it has crippled the education of countless children.But at the very least, it has added the knowledge of creationism.
Hatred? He is simply clarifying my words. What's hateful about that?Your hatred is showing.
I was making no such insinuations. By force-feeding Creationism to kids under the guise of science, their education is crippled."Indeed, it has crippled the education of countless children."
Is this a cause and effect argument? You seem to be making the claim that if a child is taught the message of God and the story of the Creation, that child will therefore be unable to either receive or comprehend a useful education. Or perhaps that the understanding of the story of literal creation precludes any understanding of science.
The Hebrew is pretty explicit. Every other instance of the word 'yod' refers to a literal sunset-to-sunset period, and Genesis 1 has none of the tell-tale signs of being poetic allegory (rather, it smacks of oral history).The two are not incompatible. If God exist and he created the world and all in it, this does not mean that he did it in literally six days as we understand the term "day."
Agreed.What is time to God? Or, excluding God for the moment, what would be the value of time to a being with infinate existence who, by default, would have little need to mark time in the same sense as finite beings?
I realize that there are those who do accept the literal definition of the term "day" as it applies to creationism, but I have always seen this as finite humans placing their values on an infinate being. This is one reason I do not consider myself a literal creationist, as although I do see the "hand of God" in the natural world, I do not deny the evidence which points to an "old earth" or a slowly forming Universe. Unlike others, however, I simply have not concluded that a 4.2 billion year old earth excludes the existence of God.
Because I was not lambasting theism as detrimental to a child's education. Force-feeding Creationism under the guise of scientific knowledge? Undermining actual scientific inquiry because of Bronze-age mythology? Forgive me, but that's hardly conducive to a decent education.My belief in God also didn't prevent me from earning two undergratuate and one graduate degree. I don't see why such a belief should stop others from doing the same, or more.
Well, it hasn't. I've yet to see any contribution Creationism has made to the sphere of human knowledge. If and when such an example is given, I, and probably RichardT as well, will revise our eralier statements."He is simply clarifying my words. What's hateful about that?"
RichardT spoke in an absolute. Creationism has added nothing, "not one iota", to any human knowledge.
Apparently so: you said "Are you really trying to say that there has not been one scientist who ever invented or researched anything who also believed in the existence of God?", which is not what I was saying, as RichardT clarified.Well, he is wrong. I spoke to what appeared, to me at least, to be his motivation for making such a statement. And this is not meant to be an attack or slight in any way, but do you really need him to clarify your words?
The Dover Area School District (operating schools in Dover, Pennsylvania, USA) voted to include Intelligent Design into the science curriculum as an alternative to Darwin's Theory of Evolution (i.e., common descent). Though it was overturned about a year later, students were nonetheless taught Creationism under the guise of science.Posted by WC:
"I was making no such insinuations. By force-feeding Creationism to kids under the guise of science, their education is crippled."
OK. On creationism, there are hard core (I refuse to use the term fanatics) creationist who I am sure "force-feed" the issue to all who will listen. But in a general sense, I would like to see some actual evidence, statistical or otherwise, that public and/or private school systems "force-feed" creationist theory under the guise of science. I entertain the notion that this claim is often made by atheist on the same level as the "evolution is dogma" claim is made by creationist.
Perhaps. But if the text was divinely inspired (how else would the Hebrews know about the Creation of the universe, after all), would God not be aware of the limitations of Hebrew and have it recorded poetically?"The Hebrew is pretty explicit."
I am not a biblical scholar, so I take your word for it. However it seems logical that the Hebrews who crafted the language used would chose a word which referred to a literal day when they were attempting to describe what they apparently thought to be a literal day.
I don't see how. I suppose I could clarify that positive contributions are required, but that would seem redundant."I've yet to see any contribution Creationism has made to the sphere of human knowledge."
Well, I suppose the question of "contribution" is open to debate.
i just dont get it, i have seen alot of documentaries over the past days both about creationism and evolution and i cant see how anyone would believe in creationism.
according to creationism the earth is 6000 years old, god created everything and god is perfect. well if the earth is only 6000 years old, then how do you explain that we find fossils that are millions of years old?
also if god created the earth and put Adam and Eve on it, they got a son eventually and he went out to find himself a wife. from where??? him and Adam and Eve are the only 3 humans on the earth, where would he find a wife? then Adam and eve would have to make him one, and we would all today walk around and be one giant group of inbred hillbillies.
furthermore, if the earth and the humans are only 6000 years old, how can we be 6 billion humans today? if we started with two humans, those two became 4 and those 4 became 8, and so on and so on. including fatal accidents, children born dead, sterility and just dieing from old age. it doesn't take a genius to quickly figure out that it would take alot more than just 6000 years to get to 6 billion humans. i mean if you take a family of two today, and count 5 generations ahead (100 years or so) they could maybe have gotten to be 100 people, at the most, where most of them would be old and soon to die, leaving maybe 16 couples to breed. and considering people didnt live nearly as long back then as we do now, and we dont count the fact that they would all be brothers and sisters, making probably some handicapped, and some incapable of carrying on making babies. so in 100 years 2 would become 32. it doesnt take a genius to figure out that it would take alot more than 6000 years for them to become 6 billions.
alot of creationists argument is that scientists cant prove 100% how the earth was created and the origin of life, and that scientists have been wrong so many times, but thats what science is, science is comming up with a theory of how it could have happen, and then see if you can disprove it. science is guessing and then putting it to the test, so ofc there will be alot of theories that are not correct.
and how come evolutionists have to come up with ways to prove how life originated, when creationists dont? can creationists prove that it was god who created the universe, earth and life, and it wasnt because of the big bang and evolution? all i have ever heard is creationists saying evolution cant be right because of this and because of that. but because this old book, that we cant even prove is really written by god, and could just as easily have been written by well anybody, says that it was made by some giant dude just snapping his fingers and everything came into being, then that is the right way.
speaking of which, how do creationists even know the bible is the book of god? have they any proof of that? if i wrote a book and called it the book of god, and said that god came to me one night and told me to write this book for him, would you believe that? you cant prove that god didnt come to me, because everytime you would come with a really good proof, i could just say that, thats how god is making it look so you wont figure out he is real.
dont get me wrong, i understand that religion can be good. it can bring hope and joy to people. but it can also bring the opposite. here im talking about holy war, but thats a total different matter.
i just dont get it, i have seen alot of documentaries over the past days both about creationism and evolution and i cant see how anyone would believe in creationism.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?