Creationists please read!

B

Believe

Happy medium
Valued Senior Member
I will start this by saying that I believe in God and in Jesus. However, I believe that this 7 day mumbo jumbo is just a translation error between God and who ever his human counter part was that wrote this down. In simple terms, these 7 days are GOD'S DAYS not mans days.

What does this mean to you? Let me explain with a question. If you are a being of infinity, for which time and space have no meaning because you are every where and every when at the same time, what is your 7 days in human terms? I'm guessing about 13.75 ± 0.17 billion years. They didn't even understand the concept of Billion when this stuff was written.

Why would evolution be a slow process when God can do anything it wants you may ask? Let me tell you that of course it could do anything it wants, but it created this universe the way it is for a reason. So, it probably just chooses to operate within its parameters. The bible does say that the voice of God would cause massive destruction, perhaps if it directly interacts with our world it would also cause catastrophy.

It would simply then operate behind the scenes. When have infinate time you can simply tweek something in the big bang and change what ever you want. However, because of the way the it set up our world (gravity, matter, strong force, weak force, dark energy, chemistry, atoms, ext, ext.....) everything still takes time. The end.
 
I believe that this 7 day mumbo jumbo is just a translation error between God and who ever his human counter part was that wrote this down.
Click to expand...

So how many other things are written by humans within the Bible that are also "mumbo jumbo"? Most of it, half, a third but which half or part is? :shrug:
 
Belive said:
I will start this by saying that I believe in God and in Jesus. However, I believe that this 7 day mumbo jumbo is just a translation error between God and who ever his human counter part was that wrote this down.
Click to expand...
So this infinitely intelligent creator couldn't find a decent translator? That's rather sloppy work on it's part.
 
At the time it was written the rest of the world wouldn't have understood the concept of a billion, even if the writer did.
 
Creating life in 14 billion years is not a miracle. The only reason it was considered miraculous is because of the short timeline proposed. Get rid of the 6 days and all you are left with is natural, undirected evolution, no God required.
 
sorry to jump in: if God really dose exists, then this is pretty much real. the fossil evince is there, chemical evince is there, and so on. light takes million of years to reach us from Andromeda alone (2 million to be precise) so creationist who claim evolution is false, or God did it 6000 years ago just jump over it.

Andromeda is clearly 2 million light years away, so the universe is not 6000 years as they claim. If God indeed exist (i, a mortar mere human would, so GOD...) then if he did created everything in 7 days, you'd say he would be more...accurate,careful and would care more for everything, yet according to this, he just set and watched as we fucked ourselves. it makes fuck of a more sense what says.
but of course, i'm an atheist and don't believe in god, but if dose exists, then no human on Earth has the right religion, by far.
 
500px-Methodology_of_science_and_creationism.png
 
I agree, they are crazy indeed. That is what I was saying. I am not a creationist. God and science do not need to be mutually exclusive. The miracle not that we were created. Honestly, the miracle is that there is anyting at all. There is no reason for there to be anthing, God or not.

BTW George 1, I love how you come over here to try to bash me just because I'm kicking your butt in the starwars vs. startrek tread.
 
i did not come here for anything dude, your not that important. i came here to support a fact: creationist are idiots.
BTW, out of SW vs ST, i can put aside any rival combat. oh, and your not kicking anyone's ass, but stay on context here please.
 
Well I hope it's worth the pain when this master plan comes together! I like the fact you are using logic though.
 
Last edited:
I had a creationist tell me that because evolution is a "theory" not a "fact" that creationism is just as valid, she couldn't understand that EVERYTHING in science is a theory but that it doesn't invalidate it
 
Asguard said:
I had a creationist tell me that because evolution is a "theory" not a "fact" that creationism is just as valid, she couldn't understand that EVERYTHING in science is a theory but that it doesn't invalidate it
Click to expand...

everything is a theory? NOTHING has been proven? :confused:
 
Asguard said:
I had a creationist tell me that because evolution is a "theory" not a "fact" that creationism is just as valid, she couldn't understand that EVERYTHING in science is a theory but that it doesn't invalidate it
Click to expand...

Were you on vacation in Texas?

~String
 
gmilam said:
So this infinitely intelligent creator couldn't find a decent translator? That's rather sloppy work on it's part.
Click to expand...

It is not sloppy , It is to what audience you are speaking


Would you talk to nonintellectuals i about subatomic particle or about splaising RNA.

I am sure you are in some field an ignoramus, like any one of us.
 
Asguard said:
Yes everything is a theory.
Click to expand...

The word θεωρία apparently developed special uses early in the Greek language. In the book, From Religion to Philosophy, Francis Cornford suggests that the Orphics used the word "theory" to mean 'passionate sympathetic contemplation'.[3] Pythagoras changed the word to mean a passionate sympathetic contemplation of mathematical and scientific knowledge. This was because Pythagoras considered such intellectual pursuits the way to reach the highest plane of existence. Pythagoras emphasized subduing emotions and bodily desires in order to enable the intellect to function at the higher plane of theory. Thus it was Pythagoras who gave the word "theory" the specific meaning which leads to the classical and modern concept of a distinction between theory as uninvolved, neutral thinking, and practice
Click to expand...

Its just the walk along the road. What you see when you get there is factual\fact.

Following the trail etc.
 
yaracuy said:
It is not sloppy , It is to what audience you are speaking


Would you talk to nonintellectuals i about subatomic particle or about splaising RNA.

I am sure you are in some field an ignoramus, like any one of us.
Click to expand...
I thought god was talking to all audiences.
 
George1 said:
sorry to jump in: if God really dose exists, then this is pretty much real. the fossil evince is there, chemical evince is there, and so on. light takes million of years to reach us from Andromeda alone (2 million to be precise) so creationist who claim evolution is false, or God did it 6000 years ago just jump over it. Andromeda is clearly 2 million light years away, so the universe is not 6000 years as they claim. If God indeed exist (i, a mortar mere human would, so GOD...) then if he did created everything in 7 days, you'd say he would be more...accurate,careful and would care more for everything, yet according to this, he just set and watched as we fucked ourselves. it makes fuck of a more sense what says.
but of course, i'm an atheist and don't believe in god, but if dose exists, then no human on Earth has the right religion, by far.
Click to expand...
The religionists explain this by saying that God, with his unlimited supernatural powers, simply created all the light rays in transit, and all the artificially aged fossils, to make it look like the universe is thirteen billion years old. He did this to create doubt in our minds. This is a test. Only the truly faithful will discard all reason and logic and believe in him.

He doesn't want his people to make decisions based on reasoning. He wants them to make decisions based on irrational faith.
Orleander said:
everything is a theory? NOTHING has been proven?
Click to expand...
No, that's not right. The highest status any assertion can achieve in science is that of a theory. A theory is a hypothesis that has been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt. I borrow the language of the law because sometimes it seems like the language of science was crafted specifically to thwart communication with laymen. It's like the arcane terminology of a medieval craft guild, whose members didn't want their patrons to understand how they did their work until they joined the guild, took an oath of secrecy, and went through their apprenticeship.

Scientific theories are derived logically from empirical observation of the natural universe's present and past behavior. Since we cannot observe its future behavior, there is always an infinitesimal chance that a new bit of evidence will occur tomorrow that will falsify a theory. This happens on rare occasions, although the theory is usually refined rather than discarded. For example Einstein adjusted Newton's Laws of Motion to accommodate observations that could not have been made with the instruments available in Newton's day. The adjustments are so subtle that they are irrelevant to laymen, except of course those who lived in Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl.

The point is that on the balance it is indeed unreasonable to doubt a scientific theory. The chance of your doubt being correct is infinitesimal. Not only that, but it takes an Einstein to find the flaw in a theory, not an undergraduate majoring in "Creation Science" at a third-rate Christian university.

Mathematical theories, on the other hand, are absolutely true because they are derived from pure abstractions rather than observations of reality.

And then there are the "theories" of police detectives, which are nothing more than high-probability hunches. And the "theories" of laymen, which are often just interesting speculation with virtually no supporting evidence.

Science desperately needs a better vocabulary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top