Creationism

I mean no offence to Christians, Muslims or Jews but I can see it now, God sat there on His throne deciding how to screw with our minds next and suddenly thinking up dinosaur fossils!

MTFBWY

There is a problem with all the theories explaining cosmogony, and we can only be certain, that we don't know jack about all that. When you come down to the meaning of most theories, then Something (Someone) created Everything out of Nothing. It doesn't matter if we're talking about Creationism or the Big Bang, no theory makes sense, which doesn't mean, that they don't have to be true. All we can say for sure, is that everything somehow began, period.

Where is the beginning, the starting point, on this?

The point where you started drawing this circle :whistle:

Just one thing I have been thinking of: What's the difference? What effect does any of these theories have on our lives at all? (Unless one would bound more beliefs to some of them and unless one would work in archaeology or so)

Gisteron wrote: Just one thing I have been thinking of: What's the difference? What effect does any of these theories have on our lives at all? (Unless one would bound more beliefs to some of them and unless one would work in archaeology or so)

It ultimately doesn't matter if you're ok and find yourself happy with having believing that creationism is true

Where it does matter is when people attempt to force their own religious beliefs into the education of children and claim that their views are scientific fact when they absolutely in no way are.

That is my key point of contention and that is why I think the debate over the validity of creationism (as scientific fact and not opinion) is a debate worth having

okay, heres my quick 5p for those who care...i gotta go to work in a min, but this is indeed an interesting topic, is it not?

i am nominally a christian, in that i have been baptized and attend church regularly. i dont think that this in any way supercedes the technological paradigm this world has created since the time of the writing of the bible. by that i mean, we all remember the catholic church's stance on the research of galileo galilei (among many, many others). heliocentric. flat earth. slaves as willing converts to christianity. and so on.

the writers of the bible had no possible way to conceive of the world we live in now, and its many scientific theories (some, like gravity, more verifiable than others, like multiverse theory). i think that in matters of the technological and scientific, the Church (as a whole) needs to admit its lack of education and experience in this field and leave it to the scientists/technologists who are advancing the field. after all, you dont see them (usually) telling anyone how to worship their god of choice. stick to what you know, fellas.

Kalkho wrote: The point where you started drawing this circle :whistle:

The circle was not drawn. It's generated by a mathematical equation; there's no starting point.

(x - h)2 + (y - k)2 = r2

Ah, but the process of developing this particular circle have started when You commanded Your computer to make one for You. There's always a start.

Physicists theorize that before there was time “to start” there was no time. So it either it always was or couldn’t have been.

Let V (x) be continuous and positive near zero.
If V (x) ≥ 3/4X to the −2 power, near zero then V (x) is in the limit point case.
If for some, E > 0, V (x) ≤ ( 3/4− E)x to the −2 power, near zero, then V (x) is in the limit circle case.

So that in space time:

Ds to the 2 power = −rαdt to the 2 power + rβdr to the 2 power + C −2rγdθ to the 2power + rδ(dz + Adθ)to the 2 power



This of course is theory, but it is the accepted model.

Letters don't belong in math!!

Kalkho wrote: Ah, but the process of developing this particular circle have started when You commanded Your computer to make one for You. There's always a start.

That's not a start. That's picking an arbitrary point. I did not invent the concept of the circle or develop the equation that expressed it. Why not say it started with the person who first conceived the concept of a circle or the one who developed the equation for a circle? There's the timeline for the computer too.

Let's use another example. What is the first integer number and what is the last integer number. Where does the integer number line begin and / or end?

That's an interesting question. But, according to Wittgenstein, we're surrounded by concepts, that take form of words. You're asking me now to think about infinity. But how can I possibly have a concept of infinity in my mind? I could try to picture the entire Universe as well. And infinty on the number line is severely simplified.

@csmith
What about base 13 or hexadecimal systems?

I don't see how this is proving anything about existence at all. Maths and logics start with an axiom that there is duality and this axiom is being accepted as true without any better reason but that maths would be pointless otherwise.

@kahlko, now your just making things up

Kalkho wrote: That's an interesting question. But, according to Wittgenstein, we're surrounded by concepts, that take form of words. You're asking me now to think about infinity. But how can I possibly have a concept of infinity in my mind? I could try to picture the entire Universe as well. And infinty on the number line is severely simplified.

Then according to Wittgenstein your assertion that everything has a start is merely a word concept and has no basis in reality.

The point being that there was no begining to time or the universe I assume. You are of they that believe time is cyclical, an ever repeating loop. It is an interesting thought, that time always was, had no begining, will have no end... This topic has caught my eye because I, like so apparently few others here, am Christian. Though I am not an extensive literallist. I believe some aspects of the Bible are to be understood as fact and others are to be seen as the teaching parables that they are.

Now, a few things that require reply; four corners of the Earth, duration of creation and such, and evolution.

1) The four corners. I would like a book, chapter, and verse reference if you don't mind. The only time I recall the four corners of the Earth being mentioned is in the book of Revelation where it is a symbolic reference to 'the farthest reaches of the globe', however I might be wrong, I don't have the Bible memorized after all.

2) How long it took God to make the world and everything in it. The simple answer is that He is The Almighty and can do more or less as He pleases, but this answer tends to be not very satisfying. I will admit, this is a topic Christianity itself is divided upon. I was taught that since the first five books, The Pentateuch, were writtan by a man, Moses, then we should understand them as a man would; that being 24 hour days. The information Moses wrote would have been passed by word of mouth during the pre-patriarical era. (The patriarical era being the time from Abraham to Joshua and the founding of Israel as a kingdom.) I understand that many see this as time for fabrication or mistakes in recording, but I believe that God provides.
2b) The Earth existing without a star for it to revolve around. Again, He is The Creator, Or more meaningfully, when God created light he created darkness at the exact same time. In doing this he gave us what we would come to understand as day and night. We as humans tend to think of the sun as the dominant light so much so that we cannot think of where light would come from without it. Imagine this though, when God divided light from dark perhaps he simply creted hemispheres of each, which would grant day and night just as well as the sun would. The hemisphere idea make plenty of sense to those of us who chose to believe in the divine be cause we read that God did the same sort of thing when he seperated the sky and sea.

3) Evolution. I have no answer that will satisfy, and I know that, but I will say my piece just the same. Micro-evolution, or adaptation, is well known and observed. This is what Darwin witnessed on those islands, prticularly in the birds. However, these birds, for all the changes they went through, did not become anything other than birds. Darwin took this information, and ran with it. If, over a short period of time, birds can change to mach their surroundings then couldnt chimps or gorillas, over a much longer period of time, become something akin to humans? A bold claim, but one that lacked real evidence. Since his day macro-evolution, or Darwinian Evolution, has made quite an impact on the world and the way we view the progression of life. Alas however, there is that ubiquitous question. "If humans came from mankeys, how come we still have mankeys?"

Thank you for allowing me to butt in, and I would very much appreciate it if this conversation continued with as much respect as humanly possible.

-Michael May

Dang that took a lot longer to write than I thought it would. It belongs up there with the number line post.

Vexaeus, that happens all the time - by the time you've written a post several have posted in between.

I'd say there's more than a few Christians here.

I'm going to take a bit of time to properly comment on your post so as to do it justice. For now, off the top of my head, I can think of Isaiah 11:12 (besides Revelations) where The Bible refers to the four corners of The Earth. King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.) And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

On the question of why are there still monkeys - we did not evolve from monkeys but from a common ancestor. Here is a great timeline that shows the details. It goes from right (the past) to left (the present). So if you start at the left you're at today and you work your way back from there.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-evolution-timeline-interactive

Here's a fine paper about The Old Testament I just came upon yesterday. It's attached for your interest.