Creationism

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.

I believe we can agree that the four corners, in this scripture is again being used figuratively. In fact, the entire chapter is an allusion, a bit of biblical foreshadowing if you will. Not to be taken at face value.



[url=http://http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-6-argument-common-design-points-to-common-ancestry][/url]

I believe we can agree that the four corners, in this scripture is again being used figuratively. In fact, the entire chapter is an allusion, a bit of biblical foreshadowing if you will. Not to be taken at face value.


http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+11&version=KJV


Also, the paper you cited on literalism while well written, was very biased. I will admit, I am equally biased, just in the opposite direction. The writer was a theology major, one who studies the religion from an outsiders perspective and without a believer's understanding. It is very easy to see where there may be 'flaws' in a holy text, or in the writing thereof, when you have no faith in said text. I digress, whether or not she had faith matters little, she wrote from the point of view of one who did not.

Finally, there is this link. My rebuttal for the common ancestry theory.


http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-6-argument-common-design-points-to-common-ancestry


I do love a good discussion.:laugh:

We can't have a debate if we're going to use faith as a trump card. If we agree that some of The Bible is written figuratively and in parables (Jesus clearly taught with parables as it was a Jewish custom) then why arbitrarily elevate Genesis to the level of scientific fact? The author(s) of Genesis (they're unknown) believed God lived in the clouds or up on a mountain and they could reach Heaven by building the Tower of Babel high enough. They believed the moon was the size of a baseball and that stars were tiny points of light in the sky. They had no concept of the stars being suns or that there were planets around those other stars. They had no concept of planets for that matter. The certainly believed the sun went around The Earth.

If we're free to pick and choose saying "this is fact" but "this is a figure of speech" then I can make The Bible say anything I want and so can you. Genesis gives two different accounts of creation and they contradict each other so they can't both be right unless they're parables. The authors were not writing a scientific account of creation but a parable teaching the consequence of sin and turning away from God.

We see how a baby starts as a single cell and evolves into a fully formed baby. There's no doubt as to how God does it nowadays. Why should it be so strange to understand she did it that way in the past for the formation of all life to see what interesting things would come up? Evolution being true does not mean there is no God. There's plenty of Christians, like Rev. Michael Dowd, that Thank God for Evolution and so do I.

I always get confused when people use the word "evolution".. because most of the time it's not evolution at all..

Evolution:
Biology . change in the gene pool (DNA) of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

The baby analogy is metamorphosis (Biology . a profound change in form from one stage to the next in the life history of an organism.) as the DNA of the baby doesn't change.

Most other things people refer to as "evolution" are adaptation, not evolution.

Am I incorrect in my thinking with these terms?
I've been reading this thread and until this point didn't have any real questions, just enjoying the discussion. I appreciate your thoughts. Thanks.

Reliah wrote: I always get confused when people use the word "evolution".. because most of the time it's not evolution at all..

Evolution:
Biology . change in the gene pool (DNA) of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

The baby analogy is metamorphosis (Biology . a profound change in form from one stage to the next in the life history of an organism.) as the DNA of the baby doesn't change.

Most other things people refer to as "evolution" are adaptation, not evolution.

Am I incorrect in my thinking with these terms?
I've been reading this thread and until this point didn't have any real questions, just enjoying the discussion. I appreciate your thoughts. Thanks.

You are right about the term evolution. The word evolves has a little more latitude especially when I defend my use by artistic license . Develop gradually, esp. from a simple to a more complex form. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evolves

I'm showing an analogy. For the sake of integrity feel free to substitute the sentence "We see how a baby starts as a single cell and evolves into a fully formed baby" with "We see how a baby starts as a single cell and metamorphosizes into a fully formed baby."

My big question is if one says "I believe we can agree that the four corners, in this scripture is again being used figuratively. In fact, the entire chapter [of Isaiah] is an allusion, a bit of biblical foreshadowing if you will. Not to be taken at face value" then why can't I claim the same about chapters in Genesis?

If you have not visited http://www.thankgodforevolution.com/ I highly recommend you do especially since you enjoy these types of discussions.

What do christians (specifically creationists) feel about the big bang theory being first formulated by a christian priest? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

I consider myself Christian and don't have a problem with the big bang theory as I understand it.
If God wanted it done that way, what's going to stop Him?

The more I learn about astronomy and have an open heart to the creator and the everflowing Force, the more I understand of the begining event which we call "big bang". This term fails to describe the event. I beleive in a creator and I believe in the EVENT and when I look through my telescope at distant galaxies I let my heart take over and I beleive.

But do You think that the Creator created Big Bang which created the universe? I assume, that if You believe in Big Bang, You can no longer believe in it as God's way of creating our universe, because You can only narrow down to two possible scenarios of the creation: God created the Big Bang and therefore, created the means of developing the universe, not the universe, or He WAS the Big Bang which makes Him more of a Creator, and less of a God, because, well, You don't really picture God as biggest explosion in history of the known cosmos, do You?

well you can have opinions in any way when it comes to creation, the big bang is the scientific idea, and genesis stories are more divine ideas, but it depends how far you go with it, some could believe god made the big bang, some could argue, if there was nothing, how could the big bang have been made etc.
there really doesn't have to be a logical idea on it, seeing as it happened 13.75 billion years ago, long before life of any sort existed, science is all about learning new things, but something like that will never be known, it's all open to debate and new ideas, and this is true as there are over 4200 religions, so that is about 4200 ideas for how we have came to existence.