What's your view?

[thegandyman]

There isn't anybody trying to prove the christian creation story either. There are a lot of people claiming to have prove of a young earth? But really doing it? Nobody.

Check out groups like Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International. They have PhD scientists in biology, geology, etc. that go against the grain of consensus to claim the earth to be about 10,000 years old and the universe to be about 1 million years old.

 

[thegandyman]

I see that. I just don't see why we need to have inexplicable situations in which we squeeze God. I mean... Isn't He God? Isn't He capable of being... You know, real even if we can explain and understand stuff?

Well, that's my view on the matter. If Genesis was a literal creation story, it doesn't mean God is any greater. If Genesis was meant to be read figuratively, it doesn't make God any less. Just like it didn't make the Bible less valid when it turned out heliocentrism was right. It just made the interpretations less valid.

God would obviously be the most complex being ever. It makes sense that there should be some questions about how and why he did certain things.

 

[thegandyman]

Ok, I understand one of the key elements of the ID movement in irreducible complexity. If you can prove one part of a living organism to be some complex that it could not have functioned in gradual stages but needed to come into existence all at once, then Darwinian evolution would be falsified. So now for creation. What is one of the key elements to make it a scientific theory. For instance, we know it's incredibly difficult to imagine DNA or living oranisms to come into being by accident, but what if God created the first living organisms with human evolution in mind? How would a creationist rebut that idea?

 

[AV1611VET]

For instance, we know it's incredibly difficult to imagine DNA or living oranisms to come into being by accident, but what if God created the first living organisms with human evolution in mind? How would a creationist rebut that idea?

By interpreting Genesis 1 literally.

HOWEVER, if God created the first living organisms with human evolution in mind, then I would assume Genesis 1 would have been written differently; especially the order in which things came into existence.

 

[TheReasoner]

Check out groups like Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International. They have PhD scientists in biology, geology, etc. that go against the grain of consensus to claim the earth to be about 10,000 years old and the universe to be about 1 million years old.

Doesn't make it right. There were (and still are some) people with PhDs who are quite racist. During Hitler's regime in Germany there were doctors who thought they were doing the world and humanity a huge favor by exterminating Jews. Sure, this is an extreme comparison, but it serves to illustrate a point, If you grow up or live in a community where a lie is sufficiently strongly advocated it can be sustained despite evidence disproving the lie that is believed. And in this case there are communities which tell people that - basically - accepting what the evidence tells us will lead to eternal damnation. That's an argument which carries with it a lot of fear, and can convince people despite the claim being incontrovertibly false.

Fanaticism does not find itself eliminated by availability of facts or data. It can be restrained, yes. But not eliminated.

 

[thegandyman]

Doesn't make it right. There were (and still are some) people with PhDs who are quite racist. During Hitler's regime in Germany there were doctors who thought they were doing the world and humanity a huge favor by exterminating Jews. Sure, this is an extreme comparison, but it serves to illustrate a point, If you grow up or live in a community where a lie is sufficiently strongly advocated it can be sustained despite evidence disproving the lie that is believed. And in this case there are communities which tell people that - basically - accepting what the evidence tells us will lead to eternal damnation. That's an argument which carries with it a lot of fear, and can convince people despite the claim being incontrovertibly false.

Fanaticism does not find itself eliminated by availability of facts or data. It can be restrained, yes. But not eliminated.

Well, I didn't say it does. I was just pointing out that they exist. It's of course a small minority, but I always believe in listening to everyone's arguments. There are plenty of examples of scientists in the minority throughout history that changed theories forever. My favorite example is Georges Lamaitre who was criticized harshly by Einstein for coming up with the Big Bang Theory. He did this using most of Einstein's own calculations.

 

[thegandyman]

By interpreting Genesis 1 literally.

HOWEVER, if God created the first living organisms with human evolution in mind, then I would assume Genesis 1 would have been written differently; especially the order in which things came into existence.

But what's amazing is how Genesis 1 describes the order of how living creatures came into being and how it can coincide even with evolution. Plants came first, then fish, birds, mammals, and humans. Imagine if everything were created in opposite or if everything were created at the same time.

Suppose Moses would have written: "Then after creating man, God saw that he was hungry and created food bearing trees. Then he saw that he was thirsty and created water."

So what would be your biggest scientific proof of creation (i.e. that God created all living animals in their current forms)?

 

[AV1611VET]

But what's amazing is how Genesis 1 describes the order of how living creatures came into being and how it can coincide even with evolution.

Like angiosperms before the sun, and whales before man?

 

[selfinflikted]

There are certain things that have yet to be explained such as the cause of the Big Bang. The fact that the Big Bang is a scientific theory that can't be reproduced obviously has philosophical and relgious implications. I believe God was the first cause agent of everything regardless of what your view on how it was done scientifically is. The only problem I'm pointing out is that if you assign God as the cause to everything that is unknown, if science ever figures it out, it seems that it minimizes the need for God.

Since you say, "God caused the Big Bang, since there has to be a cause."

I would ask, "Well then, who/what caused god?"

Then you would say, "God is eternal, he's always been there."

Then I would say, "[please, fill in the blank for me]"

(this is just to get you to think)

 

[TheReasoner]

By interpreting Genesis 1 literally.

HOWEVER, if God created the first living organisms with human evolution in mind, then I would assume Genesis 1 would have been written differently; especially the order in which things came into existence.

So... Then you have to ignore Genesis 2 though. Which has a different order.

And kind of weird how the sun shows up on the fourth day, especially as days depend on the sun. Even the church fathers did not read genesis 1 literally AV. That's a fairly new concept. So why do you, when it is even inconsistent with itself?
(I still have not had an answer to that question from you guys)

 

[TheReasoner]

Well, I didn't say it does. I was just pointing out that they exist. It's of course a small minority, but I always believe in listening to everyone's arguments. There are plenty of examples of scientists in the minority throughout history that changed theories forever. My favorite example is Georges Lamaitre who was criticized harshly by Einstein for coming up with the Big Bang Theory. He did this using most of Einstein's own calculations.

Sure. And I commend you for your openness. But do think critically. One can listen to everyone and respect most - but that does not mean one has to really offer much thought to what they say. For example, Margit Sandemoe, an author here in Scandinavia is convinced she has gnomes living in her garden. Would you bother checking that out, or dismiss it?
And of course there are people like this guy:
Islam in Action: Shaykh Explains Why the Earth is Flat - YouTube
Should we offer the claim a smidgeon of thought as a legitimate scientific viewopoint? If yes, why? If no, why not?

 

[selfinflikted]

And kind of weird how the sun shows up on the fourth day, especially as days depend on the sun. Even the church fathers did not read genesis 1 literally AV. That's a fairly new concept. So why do you, when it is even inconsistent with itself?
(I still have not had an answer to that question from you guys)

Because that gives an "out." It becomes much easier to completely ignore reality when there is a reason (but, the Bible literally says THIS) to.

 

[TheReasoner]

Because that gives an "out." It becomes much easier to completely ignore reality when there is a reason (but, the Bible literally says THIS) to.

Aye.

You know what else I find funny? I mentioned the church fathers - feel free to read Augustin, he goes on talking about Genesis actually. Interesting read.
But in addition to that the oldest forms of christianity around do not to my knowledge have any problem with evolution. Or big bang.
If you read what the Orthodox churches or even the catholic church - though I find that more boring - have to say on the subject you find that the churches who are the most conservative in the world - theologically - and who can trace their lineage back to the very beginning of the faith have no problem with evolution. They view genesis completely differently to what the more charismatic and new churches do.

So... As bravity is essencial (And I stink at it):
Oldest, most theological churches: No problem!
Brand new (200 years old and less often) churches - sometimes you get problems.

Additional hilarity ensues when: New churches whose teachings conflict with the oldest and with church fathers and the earliest texts claim to be the most true to the original church! Come on! That's hilarious, am I right?

My words concerning that:
YEEEAAAH! Way to GO newbies! Way to make your view credible! /end sarcasm

 

[AV1611VET]

So... Then you have to ignore Genesis 2 though. Which has a different order.

And kind of weird how the sun shows up on the fourth day, especially as days depend on the sun. Even the church fathers did not read genesis 1 literally AV. That's a fairly new concept. So why do you, when it is even inconsistent with itself?
(I still have not had an answer to that question from you guys)

I have you on read-only.

 

[TheReasoner]

I have you on read-only.

Of course you do. I have no idea what I did to deserve all that ad-hominem though AV. You swear and deride, mock too. But you never say why. So... If I have wronged you (And boy, you have wronged me) I will never know what I did so I can tro to make amends.
I suspect it is that I call you out on your philosophical, theological and logical inconsistencies though, which you can't handle properly, and thus you respond... Immaturely. Am I wrong in that?
Cause if you feel that I have wronged you say how and when, and if I have been unduly harsh I will change. Or if you require an explanation for why I say what I say you can ask - And you know I will give it. Though you usually respond to those explanations with mockery and anger. So I wonder, you say you are a Christian: Why do you not offer the same courtesy in return? Aren't you christian? Does not that mean you're supposed to do onto others, and never let the sun go down on your anger? To forgive, turn the other cheek and solve disputes by openness and love?
Because you're not doing that. I try, but you ignore my attempts. So... I am not calling you anything here, but I am asking an honest and open question: Are you a Christian, or not? At least in my case, and several others here you do not appear to be acting the part. We all fail, that's okay. But... We need to try to repent when that happens, right?

 

[thegandyman]

Sure. And I commend you for your openness. But do think critically. One can listen to everyone and respect most - but that does not mean one has to really offer much thought to what they say. For example, Margit Sandemoe, an author here in Scandinavia is convinced she has gnomes living in her garden. Would you bother checking that out, or dismiss it?
And of course there are people like this guy:
quote]

Well, I don't necessarily listen to everyone. There are some evolutionists, creationists, and others in between I can't stand to listen to. The ones that act as if you don't agree with their point of view, you are totally wrong.

 

[thegandyman]

Since you say, "God caused the Big Bang, since there has to be a cause."

I would ask, "Well then, who/what caused god?"

Then you would say, "God is eternal, he's always been there."

Then I would say, "[please, fill in the blank for me]"

(this is just to get you to think)

I stated "God casued the Big Bang, since there has to be a cause." I stated that the cause of the Big Bang has yet to be explained by science. It's s scientific theory that is only reproducible theoretically. I claimed that by admitting there is no logical cause of the first cause, that creates philosophical and religious implications. You can take it from there. Theists see God. Atheists go to multiple universes, M theory, and string theory. All of these though only push back the first cause. Like panspermia. If life originated from elsewhere in the universe and came to earth, how did it originate there? We still have questions.

 

[TheReasoner]

I stated "God casued the Big Bang, since there has to be a cause." I stated that the cause of the Big Bang has yet to be explained by science. It's s scientific theory that is only reproducible theoretically. I claimed that by admitting there is no logical cause of the first cause, that creates philosophical and religious implications. You can take it from there. Theists see God. Atheists go to multiple universes, M theory, and string theory. All of these though only push back the first cause. Like panspermia. If life originated from elsewhere in the universe and came to earth, how did it originate there? We still have questions.

We'll always have questions. But if we - hypothetically - could explain the mechanics behind everything - does that exclude a deity?
I think not, myself. But what's your viewpoint?

 

[thegandyman]

We'll always have questions. But if we - hypothetically - could explain the mechanics behind everything - does that exclude a deity?
I think not, myself. But what's your viewpoint?

That's my point exactly. I tend not to say, "well, this can't be explained through science so God must have done it." Then if science finds an explanation, it pushes God out of the picture. God gets minimized more and more. I think you can just look at the things that we do understand and appreciate God's works. The fact that our brain is nothing more than cells and chemical reactions, but it allows us to think critically and feel emotions. You can explain how it works, but why it was created that way is more of a philosophical question. There is where you can appreciate God's handy work.

 

[selfinflikted]

I stated "God casued the Big Bang, since there has to be a cause." I stated that the cause of the Big Bang has yet to be explained by science. It's s scientific theory that is only reproducible theoretically. I claimed that by admitting there is no logical cause of the first cause, that creates philosophical and religious implications. You can take it from there. Theists see God. Atheists go to multiple universes, M theory, and string theory. All of these though only push back the first cause. Like panspermia. If life originated from elsewhere in the universe and came to earth, how did it originate there? We still have questions.

Well, this isn't exactly the direction in which I was hoping to go, but, it is what it is.

But, you're right. The Big Bang is only a theory (as if that diminishes it's validity somehow - gravity, it's only a theory ya know ) that of course isn't exactly reproducible in the lab. But simply because we can't reproduce it, doesn't mean we can't make valid extrapolations from what we can see.

Anyway, this atheist doesn't "go to" string theory, multi-verse, or anything else. This atheist is quite content, for the time being at least, to say, "I don't know." But that hardly gives me cause to conclude a goddidit scenario. Some people like any old answer at all better than no answer. I'd prefer no answer to a wrong one.