Creationism

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?