I really wanna see this argument go down, so I'm creating the thread for it. (as requested by mitbulls)

To get things started, I'll just say that I can't swallow Creationism. According to Creationism, the world is only 6,000 years old. That sort of falls apart when Egyptian and Chinese history go back at least as far. Unless you're saying that China had a fully functional culture as soon as God said 'let there be light' and hit the supposed switch.

Personally, I have to agree with Robin Williams on this point. Why is it that Creationists are so strict on what it says in Genesis? Why is it God hitting a lightswitch rather than the Big Bang? The whole rest of the bible is made up of stories that are meant to teach a lesson and not be taken literally.. why would this one part be any different?

Ok, that should get things started.

Let's get ready to RUUUUUUUUMBLE!

God pwns thee, heathen. The Grand Trickster of Trickery has planted many the seeds of Tricking, making you doubt His Word.

Basically. Carbon dating is alpha-software in the world of mankind, dinosaurs was planted for to make Man stray from the Path, and so on. The amazing arguments go on and on and.. Yeah.

This thread is only asking for trouble, you know that right? It won't be a civil conversation, flames will erupt, and we'll all be doomed.

That being said, I go for a synergy. God said "Let there be Light!", and lo, the Big Bang shone brightly in the darkness....

Honestly, neither are exclusive. Believe it or not, God CAN use science, He's not all magical.

I love these threads!

To start with, you are confusing Creationism (in general) with Young Earth Creationism (a specific branch of Creationism). I will agree with you completely - I am not a YEC. It doesn't make much sense to say that the universe is only 6,000 years old. I have read some of their evidence - and yes, there are some bizarre things out there, like astronomical events occurring within recordable history that are supposed to take millennia, but not enough to be convincing. I believe the earth is much, much, much older than 6,000 years, since the majority of evidence points that way. That is acceptable without contradicting the Bible.

As for the Genesis account, we agree again. I believe the chapters of Genesis relating to Creation are clearly allegorical. They are written in poetic form with poetic symmetry. They seem to contradict each other on unimportant facts; all of those things together seem to suggest that they are not meant to be taken as a literal, historical account. Instead, they are meant to illustrate the power and personal involvement of God in the Creation. They are not meant to depict exactly how he did it. All of that said, I believe in the Big Bang - it actually makes perfect sense for OECs (Old Earth Creationists) like myself.

You asked about which parts of the Bible should be taken literally - that is actually made clear by textual criticism. A reading and understanding of textual styles allows you to decide whether the author meant a section to be literal or for some other purpose. If I put two pages up side-by-side, one from a history book and one from a Dr. Seuss book, could you tell which is which? Textual criticism works off of the same sort of concepts.

EDIT - Everiine, you're probably right, these threads usually degrade somewhat in the end, but they're always fun to begin with. Airikir, I believe you have been speaking to too many uninformed, ignorant Christians. Trust me, they annoy me at least as much as they annoy you.

Here's what I think about Creationism;

First, I do not believe Biblical Creationism - that is, believing that Genesis is a literal account of how the world came to be - is true. I don't think that humans existed alongside dinosaurs. The Earth is more than 6,000 years old and was not created in seven days. All of humanity did not spring from two people. And so on. It's a moral tale, an allagory, as is much of the rest of the Bible, IMO.

Second, why does this have to preclude that there's a higher being who might be responsible for the creation of the Universe and everything in it. Why does Big Bang, Evolution and all that have to completely negate the possibility? Just because it doesn't follow the letter of the Genesis book of the Bible?

Personally, I think that it's entirely possible that the Big Bang (which no one, not even the scientists, know much about) was the creation event and who's to say it wasn't triggered by a higher being? I think that it's entirely possible that God might just be a big experimenter, changing events in his/her/its little ant farm of a universe to see what happens and how it adapts.

For example, a meteor crashed to the Earth and the resulting fallout led to the extinction of the Dinosaurs - who's to say that God didn't take a look at Earth and decide that those big critters weren't going to work out in the long run, but there's some interesting little furry things scampering about. Let's clean the slate a bit and give them some room and see what happens! *flicks meteor towards Earth*

To me, this is just as likely as any other thing and, in my opinion, much more likely than Biblical Creationism. Notice, I said 'possible' and 'likely' and so on a lot? Cause I'm not trying to claim I'm right. Just that it's as likely as anything else without concrete proof either way.

edit: I just wanted to add that when I say 'God' I don't necessarily mean the Christian/Jewish/Muslim God, or any other particular God refereneced by any other Religion. Could be any or all of them or someone/thing completely else. I just used 'God' as a reference to the possible higher being of my possible creation scenerio.

Aww. I was hoping you were going to try and defend Young Earth Creationism, Mitbulls. That take's away some of the fun, considering I'm not opposed to a God(not necessarily Christian)-guided Evolutionary tract of thinking. But it'll still be interesting to see the anti-AnyGod squad jump on this discussion anyway

The role of science is not to eliminate God; yet the role of God is to eliminate science.

If science discovers a higher being, then it would be perfectly fine with me - but the sad fact to religious folks who base their religion on the existance of such, is that there is not even the slightest of proof in that direction.

There's something called 'salvific truth', or something like that. Anyways, it states that things in the Bible should NOT BE TAKEN LITERALLY. Adam and Eve represent the sentient, thinking human race. The seven days show that before God introduced humans, He made everything ready so that we'll be comfortable. Yada yada yada...

And anyways, it's been agreed that science and religion are on two different planes. They do not intersect. At least the Church believes so...So they do not agree, nor do they contradict each other.

That's because one is based on evidence while the other one on BS? (Will that statement make the thread go away?)

I agree with you on some points and disagree on others. I agree completely that none of those things necessarily preclude God's involvement. As an Evangelical Christian, I do believe that the Bible is absolute truth - that is, that all parts of the Bible are pure and true in their intention. I do not believe that poetry always depicts factual history, or that measurements given have to be exact to our standards (I mention this because I have heard it argued that the Bible must be false because the measurements of the pool in Solomon's temple do not come out to exactly pi).



I am not actually an Evolutionist, but that is more because I don't find the evidence for natural selection to be all that convincing. I don't have a problem with guided evolution, it just seems the less-scientifically-stable of the options in my opinion.



That is not true. The role of God is not to eliminate science - they are actually two completely different categories. In fact, I would argue that science is a tool that God purposefully gave us to discover the world around us.

The main assumption you are making here is that science is the only means of discerning truth - without scientific experimentation and proof, nothing can be accepted as true. So, since there is no scientific experiment that can prove God, clearly he cannot exist. I would disagree with that premise from its base - there are other means of discerning truth, including logic, personal experience, and witness testimony. Also, something does not have to be absolutely proven for it to be accepted as fact - if it did, history as a field would not exist.

So, in a nutshell, I would argue that science and God are in completely different arenas. I (and you, if you are honest) believe in a lot of things that are outside the realm of scientific discovery. We accept most of what we 'know' based on witness testimony. We simply compare the testimonies and decide which is most likely, then accept that as truth. It is that comparison which leads me to believe in God; there is evidence in the equation, but you are right in that there is not (and never will be) scientific absolute proof for his existence. I am perfectly okay with that.

Sorry for the double-post, as always there's too much to keep up with.



I disagree that science and religion don't ever intersect. Science and religion are two different planes, I agree with that. However, concrete religions (as opposed to purely philosophical religions) make certain claims which are historically or scientifically falsifiable. They overlap somewhat in those areas.



I was hoping you would make it for the fun. Now, where is everyone else?

Cue Veritrhax...

I would comment, but then I realized you people only care about the Christian reading of the bible, and could care less what it actually says/teaches/intended as.

If anyone is interested where the year 6,000 came from, you should do some research on it. I can tell you, that its not from the Bible or any accurate tracking.

Clearly with the "descriptions" people are giving of the Creationist's view of events (such as man living with dionsaurs) people are unaware of what is actually written.


I'll put this another way.

Unless you are looking at the various creation stories of Secularism, Judaism, Hinduism(or whatever the name of the collective religions of India is called), Ancient Near Middle east religions, Chinese folk lore, and tribal stories, then you aren't having a serious conversation about "creation", and are just rattling sabers for no particular reason.

Talking about what one Christian sect views about creation over another Christian sect is like learning British history from born and raised Americans when a British born history professor is standing right next to them.

Um, how do you know what I'm interested in? Maybe I'd like to read another POV on it? Can't promise I'd agree with it, or anything, of course, but that doesn't mean I'm not interested in hearing what you'd have to say.

Yeah, I'm focusing on the Christian verion of Creationism, because yes, that's the one I'm familiar with. That's the one that, in the US anyway, is trying to work it's way into schools in lieu of Evolution. I'm not that familiar with other Creationist movements. But then, until I read that other thread, I didn't know there were people who really believed the Earth is flat.

As for the dinosaurs thing, well, there's articles like this: How Do Creationists Explain Dinosaurs? that kind of influenced my reference to them.

I'm hurt.

I think the real issue is that people don't know what the Bible says, but only what they have been told Creationists believe, then assume that came from the Bible.

The first reference I heard to the 6,000 year thing came from someone who tried to do the math, counting the parent/child relationships in the genealogies and trying to get back to a starting date from Jesus.

Needless to say, they understood very little about Jewish genealogies or traditions, textual and oral tradition, or any of the other areas of study that invalidate the approach they took.

A few small corrections...Creationists aren't trying to have it taught in schools in lieu of evolution, but along with it. I'm not sure of my feelings on the matter. The real problem is that evolution and creation are not actually opposites. As I said, I don't believe evolution has much evidence going for it. I do understand the criticism of the government that requires evolution to be taught but bans creationism.

I think that even Daganev is oversimplifying a bit. In reality, there is no 'Christian Creationism' consensus, nor even an Ancient Near East consensus so far as I have seen. There are several broad theories, but it can't be so easily divided even by religion.

Seriously - it's all circumstantial. Especially considering things like irreducible complexity and the Cambrian Explosion.

There is no such thing as supernatural in any way. Supernatural is a human invention, and with no humans, anything happening would be defined as natural, since there would be noone to smite and besmudge the grandior of it.

God, an extremely power-hungry easter bunny, so far suffers from the same symptoms. Everything man has not yet discovered, is supernatural in a basic christians eyes - a miracle. See, many of the things we know today, that are now known to be completely natural, with precise scientific proof, was also seen as this - but do you view gravity as being a miracle?

No. There is no such thing as supernatural - and untill a higher being is proven, by science, seeing everything can be explained with the right technology and knowledge, I choose to focus on the matters of the world that actually matters, leaving people free to believe in easter bunnies, as long as they don't interfere with these matters.

Creationists do this - thus, they hinder world-related progress in pretty much every known way. Being taught creationism in school, is not different from being told about Saint Nicholaus, and how he magically turned into Santa, bringing presents to every child on christmas eve.

Google "evidence for evolution". It will blow your mind, provided you actually read it without the righteous voice in your head telling you that Evolution Is Bad. As for it being "all circumstantial", you seem to forget how science works. We don't actually see the Earth revolve around the sun, now, do we?

BS.

If a God exists, then why on earth would his role be to "eliminate" rational, logical, systematic thought? He might as well have just created a rock. (if he did create anything at all)

The theory proposed by some people is that science and God are incompatible and inimical with one another, but I'm certain there are plenty of scientists out there who also believe in God, whatever their interpretation of a higher being may be.

And just to clarify, let's ask good old Oxford:


Sorry to (partially) advocate the devil (if he exists...) but I think you're sort of arguing against yourself there what with saying "We don't use science, we use logical thought and deduction".

EDIT: You people post too fast, srsly.