Creationism

Though, like a hollywood movie done today about a real world event, for it to be popular it has to be 90% rubbish to keep people's attention and to use contexts relevant to the lives of the readers.

So, you're saying christianity is a crappy religion because it is essentially based on some popular hollywood movie?

Many faiths do share the creationism as the way that Earth been created (not exclusively Abrahamists). Others beliving in The Dream (subjectivity) as some peoples in the Big Bang (or other objectivist theories).

The better thing to do would be to travel back in time to know for sure (with dr. Emmett Brown's machine or to pass arround the the sun in hyperexponential speed or with Superman spinning arround the Earth at light speed? lol). Till there, to live in harmony is the better thing to do. Because we can't proove any thories (without any doubts and with a absolute certitude), such "fights" are trivial and futile.

Does anyone here believe that the universe is 6,000 to 8,000 years old and humans appeared ready made much as we are now around 4,000 to 6,000 BCE?

I believe most modern day physicists would agree that the universe may be around 14 billion years old and Earth would be around 3.5 - 4 billion years old. Over the previous decades the Catholic church and many other religions world wide have attempted to align their view points with modern day physics findings.

However, like many have already posed in this thread, your belief is your belief. You don't have to side with science, but to me it does seem more logical. I wont hound you for opposing to the math.

First of all, to answer the accusation of being intolerant toward Christians, I am a practicing Methodist. I believe in evolution.

I will continue to call creationists retarded because that is what they are. Not just because of the stupidity of the YEC position. I think the Flat Earth position is FAR more stupid, but I have no problem with them. Why? Because they do not try to legislate their position, nor do they try to act like they are speaking for all "true" Christians. YECs, however, do. They are no better than Islamic imperialists.

Star Forge wrote: I will continue to call creationists retarded because that is what they are.

Welp, guess adult, mature conversation has been thrown out the window. As much as I hate walking away and not sticking up for someone else, I can only contain myself so much. I do not wish to stoop to your level, so I leave it to the rest of the people here to make their expressions known. From one Christian to another, I pray that you stop this harsh judgement of another group...something the Bible teaches for us not to do. Good day, sir.

I'm still not positive what I believe or how all this works, but the thought of a grand master Jedi who gains even more knowledge after having passed into the force and eventually having so much knowledge of the force he can use it to create, really doesn't bother me too much. At all, actually. In fact, it makes more sense than anything else I can come up with..

ren wrote: So, you're saying christianity is a crappy religion because it is essentially based on some popular hollywood movie?

LOL, no, Life of Brian was done in the UK

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?