Just FYI, Genesis and Psalms are two completely different types of books. Genesis is a book of history. The Creation story is a historical account of how God created the Earth. It isn't meant to be poetic. The word that is translated as "day" is only ever used to mean a 24 hour period. That is "the evening and morning were the first day." This is talking about a day on earth
Your quote from Psalms (a book of songs and poetry) is talking about a day in Heaven (in the presence of God.) A day with the Lord is as a thousand years. It could simply be referring to the fact that time will either be perceived very differently or will not exist at all in Heaven. God is eternal and is not bound or limited by time. Rather, time is limited by God since He is the Creator of it. And time is something that God created for us to live in. The point is you can't take a day on Earth and a day in Heaven and then use them interchangeably.
Does that make it more clear?
The Big Bang idea does not qualify to be a theory because, being unobservable, it fails step 1 of the Scientific Method (Make an observation.) The Creation Story, again, is history and therefore not subject to the Scientific Method. The two ideas mix together about as well as oil and water.
Creationists need not prove anything scientifically as the Creation Story is a historical event and is not subject to the Scientific Method. The Creation Story is pretty clearly documented in the Book of Genesis, the first book of The Bible. (The first five books of The Bible are usually classified as the historical books.)
Evolution, however, is presented as science and therefore should be subject to the Scientific Method. According to step 1 of the Scientific Method, Evolution must be observable. The problem is that nobody has ever really observed it. It either happens so slowly it is unobservable; or it happened in the past making it unobservable. So much for Evolution qualifying as real science.
By "Evolution", I mean this: when any species spontaneously produces a completely new type of species which did not exist before. In order to account for the wide variety of existing life forms, this would have to happen very frequently. And yet, I can't think of a single qualifyable case where this was reported to have been observed. Any case involving human intervention (genetics) does not count. It must happen by itself in nature.
You're right when you say real true Science isn't religion. My reply is that Evolution isn't real true Science.
I can't say I've ever heard of that book. I admit that without knowing what it says, I don't know what side of the debate it places you on. However, I can provide very clear reason why anybody would have to do a "mental tap-dance" so to speak. That reason is found in John chapter 3: "Men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil." Just to be very clear, the Evolutionists are the ones engaged in the mental tap-dancing.
When you have religious whackos trying to claim "intelligent design" is more valid than evolution, and that evolution is "just a theory"... and making sure they indoctrinate children into their stupidity... it's pretty hard to compete with countries who do not have religious whackjobs.
Evolution doesn't even qualify to be a theory, at least not if you follow the Scientific Method. The creation of new species through evolution has never been observed, so how it gets to be called a theory, I have no idea.
It's always saddened me that of all the freedoms granted to American citizens, most of us choose to practice the right to be stupid and ignorant.
...which I guess is my most people seem to believe evolution.
Maybe man's perception of time is not the same as God's perception. Perhaps those millions of years worth of "proof of evolution" that we see only cover 6 days worth of creation for a God who exists in Eternity? Thus it's possible that a time difference is all that separates the creationist from the evolutionist.
That does not work. Consider the following verses from Genesis:
1:11 God said, "Let the land produce vegetation:31 plants yielding seeds according to their kinds,32 and33 trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds." It was so. 1:12 The land produced vegetation - plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. God saw that it was good. 1:13 There was evening, and there was morning, a third day.
1:14 God said, "Let there be lights34 in the expanse35 of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them be signs36 to indicate seasons and days and years, 1:15 and let them serve as lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." It was so. 1:16 God made two great lights37 - the greater light to rule over the day and the lesser light to rule over the night. He made the stars also.38 1:17 God placed the lights39 in the expanse of the sky to shine on the earth, 1:18 to preside over the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness.40 God saw that it was good. 1:19 There was evening, and there was morning, a fourth day.
On the 3rd day, God created plant life and put into the place the process by which they reproduce. I've got to think that means by the end of the 3rd day, the plants were completed which also means the process known as photosynthesis has been created. As we all know, plants require sun light in order to live.
Sunlight was not created until the 4th day. If a day in these verses means a period of 24 hours (as I believe), then no problem. The sun sets every evening and when it rises in the morning the plants are OK. But, if a day stands for millions of years, then the plants will be dead before sunlight is created. Besides, the Scripture talks about evenings and mornings; so if "a day" is a million years then what is an "evening" and a "morning"?
But, yes, God's perception of time is very different from man's. Man is living inside of time and is thus limited by it. God is the Creator of the universe. Time is simply one of the universe's dimensions and God transcends the universe.
The only thing that seperates the creationist from the evolutionist is God. That is, creationists believe in design with a Creator. Evolutionists believe in design without a Creator.
could jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?
The better question is: Would Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it? Would you? If not, then why would He do such a thing, being infinately more wise. So, as long as the answer is "no" then the question of "could He..." becomes moot.
Can God smell the color nine?
But nine's not a color. And even if it were, you can't smell a color. That's my point exactly.;^)
Being compared with a dog is quite a compliment compared with what God compares us with. And what does God compare us with? Sheep. Sheep are completely defensless. They cannot take care of themselves. They completely rely on the shepherd to take care of them. Ever hear of a wild flock of sheep?
So... if God were so small and limited that He could fit within the understanding of a sheep that can't even take care of him/herself... could He really be God?
I guess it depends on which beginning you refer to. The beginning of all existence? No, creation does not explain that. It does explain the beginning of time. God is the one who created time and so He is not limited by it (though I do believe that time IS limited by Him.) He also wrote what we call the Laws of Thermodynamics, which is why He is not subject to them. Rather, He has set into motion how they work. Those Laws are, afterall, a small part od His creation. Since He is an infinite (in terms of time, space, energy, etc, etc) God, I don't think it's very far fetched to think He can create something as limited as our universe is (though from our perspective, it is also very grand.)
I hope this gives a more clear view of what at least one Creationist thinks about it.
My top 5 games in no particular order:
1. RollerCoaster Tycoon 3 (PC)
2. Asteroids (Dashboard Widget... looks and plays just like the arcade game.)
3. Shark! Shark! (Intellivision)
4. Super Mario 64 (N64)
5. Legend Of Zelda: Ocarina Of Time (N64)
Really? After about a year with OS X, I find that it speeds me up since the interface is so much more efficient. I can get to things with fewer clicks. And that's without even counting the fact we're talking single click vs. double click.
The biggest challenges I see with the tranporter are these: After it disassembles you and your molecules are somehow recieved on the other end, it will have to reassemble you correctly. Any food or drink you might have recently ingested would have to be reassembled inside you but still as a seperate entity.
Each article of clothing you are wearing would have to be reassembled seperately of every other article of clothing and you might not want any of those getting mixed up with molecules from your own anatomy. And unless just aren't shy, you might want your clothes to be assembled in such a way that you are dressed when you get reassembled. Wouldn't be funny though to have an arena on the recieving end where people can gather and watch new arrivals get reassembled with their clothes folded neatly on the ground next to them? Never mind.
I'm sure you will also want your vital functions to begin functioning again when they put you back together and you might even like to have all your memories, feelings, convictions, preferances, and other intangible stuff put back in your heart and head. I can't even imagine how the reassembly process will manage to reattach your soul and your spirit to you body again. Wouldn't that be sort of like conquering death?
But about that Space Elevator: Sounds like a long trip up there. What kind of music can we count on?
There is no reason why creationists should be angered by the new fossil discovery. I'm a creationist and I'm not angered. So they've discovered a new type of creature. Great! It just means our knowlege is increasing concerning the wide variety of animals God has intelligently designed.
If evolution is relying on missing links to prove itself, well then... with this new discovery we could easily say that's one down, several million more to go.
I personally believe the fossil record to be little more than a snapshot of a single moment in time. You see, fossilization is a very rare phenomena which requires its subject to be buried alive. Getting buried alive does not happen very much in nature. The only explanation I can think of for the existance of as many fossils as we have found is a great cataclysm. I think the Flood qualifies. If you don't believe Genesis, that's OK because every culture has an ancient myth about a flood that covered the whole world. I saw a special on that on the Discovery Channel. But then, that's just what I think about the whole thing.
BTW, this new creature would not be the first known fish to walk on land. Remember the mud skipper fish? I saw a live specimen once when I went to Sea World. It doesn't prove evolution either.
So I can finally get that FireWire implant? Great! Then I could instatly learn kung fu! I could learn every martial art there is and become a master of a multitude of fire arms! I could even learn to fly a Huey!;^)
As for being taught in history classrooms, I suspect creationists will have to find some more archelogical evidence to suppose their hypothesis that the Universe was created 4000 years ago. Doubtless those historians studying societies older thand 4000 years will find themselves quite put out to be shown wrong.
I thought recorded history went back at least 6000 years. Some even believe the Earth to be closer to 10,000 years old. I'm not so sure that archaelogical evidence is useful in figuring out the age of the Earth- that has more to with finding out about about ancient civilizations and how they lived regardless of how many years ago they exisited. Finding the age of the Earth seems to bring us back into the realm of science.
I have no problem with creationism being taught as a religious idea. Or being taught apart from government-funded education. However, it seems odd to teach it along with evolution as a science, when it is not.
It seems odd to me to teach Darwinian macroevolution as a science when it has never been observed.
But, I wouldn't suggest teaching either creation or evolution as science since history and science are really not the same.
And it seems odd to mention it in history classes, when the vast majority of historians will tell you that the bible really isn't all that accurate.
The Bible is the most historically authenticated ancient set of documents we have. That's pretty miraculuous considering the majority of the world hates it and would like to see it completely go away.
That said, I always find philosophical debates on God fascinating, and I would encourage any school to have such discussions upon God. So long as both sides of the divide are represented.
Wouldn't be much of a debate if both sides were not well represented, would it?;^)
Viruses and bacteria evolve into new species all the time, which is really quite the problem!
It is quite a problem in the world of medicine so I agree.
A virus "evolving" into a new type of virus is still a virus. I doubt the "new" species of virus has anything the previous one did not have.
Here is the real question: Has anybody ever observed a virus evolving into a bacteria or vice versa? That's what Darwinian Macroevolutiuon claims and that's wht needs to happen in order for it to have been observed.
The idea that you can separate 'macroevolution' from 'microevolution' always struck me as somewhat odd.
The idea that you can combine something observable with something unobservable seems odd to me.
That's believing in ponds but not believing in seas. However, since an omnipotent being could easily falsify any evidence that we find, so I do suppose it's academic arguing creationism from a rational point of view
Any real evidence that is found is part of God's creation, so of course He does not falsify it. The only thing that falsifies anything is if it was never true to begin with.
You're going to have to use your imagination, but, imagine your mind was put together seconds ago, but the atoms in your body were configured in such a way that you had a continuous memory, and didn't know you had just been created at all.
I'm not suggesting this is true; I merely want you to visualize this as a way of picturing how God could create time and exist outside it
May I try my hand making an analogy to express what I think you are getting at?
Let's take an mp3 of a song that lasts 3 minutes. Well how long does it take to listen to it at the correct speed? 3 minutes, obviously. But how long does it take to write that data to any Folder that you copy it to? Less than a second. That's 3 minutes worth of information (or memories) being written to a specific location in less than a second.
Please don't worry about how, long it took the band to actually record the song. My analogy breaks down there (as will any analogy if you take it too far.)
That is... unless you say the Folder represents "time" and if that's the case then the band exists outside of; transcends; and is not limited by "time" (even through they can "enter time" by browsing the Folder) just as God transcends; exists outside of; and it is not limited by time even though He can look inside of it and affect anything He chooses.
If Creationism is a valid scientific theory
Creation is not a scientific theory, it is a historical event. That places it outside of the realm of science. Creation is also a supernatural event. This also places it outside of the realm of science.
Science has do with seeing what is there and finding out how it works.
Biology is a science.
This is correct, biology is a science. Specifically it is the study of life.
Evolution is a scientific theory, as there are simple tests one could devise to disprove it.
This is not correct if you are refering to Darwinian Macroevolution. It is not something that can be observed and therefore does not pass the first step of the Scientific Method.
Slashdot Mirror
Just FYI, Genesis and Psalms are two completely different types of books. Genesis is a book of history. The Creation story is a historical account of how God created the Earth. It isn't meant to be poetic. The word that is translated as "day" is only ever used to mean a 24 hour period. That is "the evening and morning were the first day." This is talking about a day on earth
Your quote from Psalms (a book of songs and poetry) is talking about a day in Heaven (in the presence of God.) A day with the Lord is as a thousand years. It could simply be referring to the fact that time will either be perceived very differently or will not exist at all in Heaven. God is eternal and is not bound or limited by time. Rather, time is limited by God since He is the Creator of it. And time is something that God created for us to live in. The point is you can't take a day on Earth and a day in Heaven and then use them interchangeably.
Does that make it more clear?
The Big Bang idea does not qualify to be a theory because, being unobservable, it fails step 1 of the Scientific Method (Make an observation.) The Creation Story, again, is history and therefore not subject to the Scientific Method. The two ideas mix together about as well as oil and water.
Creationists need not prove anything scientifically as the Creation Story is a historical event and is not subject to the Scientific Method. The Creation Story is pretty clearly documented in the Book of Genesis, the first book of The Bible. (The first five books of The Bible are usually classified as the historical books.)
Evolution, however, is presented as science and therefore should be subject to the Scientific Method. According to step 1 of the Scientific Method, Evolution must be observable. The problem is that nobody has ever really observed it. It either happens so slowly it is unobservable; or it happened in the past making it unobservable. So much for Evolution qualifying as real science.
By "Evolution", I mean this: when any species spontaneously produces a completely new type of species which did not exist before. In order to account for the wide variety of existing life forms, this would have to happen very frequently. And yet, I can't think of a single qualifyable case where this was reported to have been observed. Any case involving human intervention (genetics) does not count. It must happen by itself in nature.
You're right when you say real true Science isn't religion. My reply is that Evolution isn't real true Science.
I can't say I've ever heard of that book. I admit that without knowing what it says, I don't know what side of the debate it places you on. However, I can provide very clear reason why anybody would have to do a "mental tap-dance" so to speak. That reason is found in John chapter 3: "Men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil." Just to be very clear, the Evolutionists are the ones engaged in the mental tap-dancing.
Better get some http://sploids.com/ then! (Would Parallels be kinda like Sploids?)
Evolution doesn't even qualify to be a theory, at least not if you follow the Scientific Method. The creation of new species through evolution has never been observed, so how it gets to be called a theory, I have no idea.
It's always saddened me that of all the freedoms granted to American citizens, most of us choose to practice the right to be stupid and ignorant....which I guess is my most people seem to believe evolution.
That does not work. Consider the following verses from Genesis:
1:11 God said, "Let the land produce vegetation:31 plants yielding seeds according to their kinds,32 and33 trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds." It was so. 1:12 The land produced vegetation - plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. God saw that it was good. 1:13 There was evening, and there was morning, a third day.
1:14 God said, "Let there be lights34 in the expanse35 of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them be signs36 to indicate seasons and days and years, 1:15 and let them serve as lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." It was so. 1:16 God made two great lights37 - the greater light to rule over the day and the lesser light to rule over the night. He made the stars also.38 1:17 God placed the lights39 in the expanse of the sky to shine on the earth, 1:18 to preside over the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness.40 God saw that it was good. 1:19 There was evening, and there was morning, a fourth day.
On the 3rd day, God created plant life and put into the place the process by which they reproduce. I've got to think that means by the end of the 3rd day, the plants were completed which also means the process known as photosynthesis has been created. As we all know, plants require sun light in order to live.
Sunlight was not created until the 4th day. If a day in these verses means a period of 24 hours (as I believe), then no problem. The sun sets every evening and when it rises in the morning the plants are OK. But, if a day stands for millions of years, then the plants will be dead before sunlight is created. Besides, the Scripture talks about evenings and mornings; so if "a day" is a million years then what is an "evening" and a "morning"?
But, yes, God's perception of time is very different from man's. Man is living inside of time and is thus limited by it. God is the Creator of the universe. Time is simply one of the universe's dimensions and God transcends the universe.
The only thing that seperates the creationist from the evolutionist is God. That is, creationists believe in design with a Creator. Evolutionists believe in design without a Creator.
could jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?
The better question is: Would Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it? Would you? If not, then why would He do such a thing, being infinately more wise. So, as long as the answer is "no" then the question of "could He..." becomes moot.
Can God smell the color nine?
But nine's not a color. And even if it were, you can't smell a color. That's my point exactly. ;^)
Being compared with a dog is quite a compliment compared with what God compares us with. And what does God compare us with? Sheep. Sheep are completely defensless. They cannot take care of themselves. They completely rely on the shepherd to take care of them. Ever hear of a wild flock of sheep? So... if God were so small and limited that He could fit within the understanding of a sheep that can't even take care of him/herself... could He really be God?
I guess it depends on which beginning you refer to. The beginning of all existence? No, creation does not explain that. It does explain the beginning of time. God is the one who created time and so He is not limited by it (though I do believe that time IS limited by Him.) He also wrote what we call the Laws of Thermodynamics, which is why He is not subject to them. Rather, He has set into motion how they work. Those Laws are, afterall, a small part od His creation. Since He is an infinite (in terms of time, space, energy, etc, etc) God, I don't think it's very far fetched to think He can create something as limited as our universe is (though from our perspective, it is also very grand.)
I hope this gives a more clear view of what at least one Creationist thinks about it.
My top 5 games in no particular order: 1. RollerCoaster Tycoon 3 (PC) 2. Asteroids (Dashboard Widget... looks and plays just like the arcade game.) 3. Shark! Shark! (Intellivision) 4. Super Mario 64 (N64) 5. Legend Of Zelda: Ocarina Of Time (N64)
So when do the real life Halo tournaments start?
Really? After about a year with OS X, I find that it speeds me up since the interface is so much more efficient. I can get to things with fewer clicks. And that's without even counting the fact we're talking single click vs. double click.
The biggest challenges I see with the tranporter are these: After it disassembles you and your molecules are somehow recieved on the other end, it will have to reassemble you correctly. Any food or drink you might have recently ingested would have to be reassembled inside you but still as a seperate entity. Each article of clothing you are wearing would have to be reassembled seperately of every other article of clothing and you might not want any of those getting mixed up with molecules from your own anatomy. And unless just aren't shy, you might want your clothes to be assembled in such a way that you are dressed when you get reassembled. Wouldn't be funny though to have an arena on the recieving end where people can gather and watch new arrivals get reassembled with their clothes folded neatly on the ground next to them? Never mind. I'm sure you will also want your vital functions to begin functioning again when they put you back together and you might even like to have all your memories, feelings, convictions, preferances, and other intangible stuff put back in your heart and head. I can't even imagine how the reassembly process will manage to reattach your soul and your spirit to you body again. Wouldn't that be sort of like conquering death? But about that Space Elevator: Sounds like a long trip up there. What kind of music can we count on?
Uh... don't facts have to be supported by evidence? If evolution is "fact" then where is the evidence?
There is no reason why creationists should be angered by the new fossil discovery. I'm a creationist and I'm not angered. So they've discovered a new type of creature. Great! It just means our knowlege is increasing concerning the wide variety of animals God has intelligently designed. If evolution is relying on missing links to prove itself, well then... with this new discovery we could easily say that's one down, several million more to go. I personally believe the fossil record to be little more than a snapshot of a single moment in time. You see, fossilization is a very rare phenomena which requires its subject to be buried alive. Getting buried alive does not happen very much in nature. The only explanation I can think of for the existance of as many fossils as we have found is a great cataclysm. I think the Flood qualifies. If you don't believe Genesis, that's OK because every culture has an ancient myth about a flood that covered the whole world. I saw a special on that on the Discovery Channel. But then, that's just what I think about the whole thing. BTW, this new creature would not be the first known fish to walk on land. Remember the mud skipper fish? I saw a live specimen once when I went to Sea World. It doesn't prove evolution either.
So I can finally get that FireWire implant? Great! Then I could instatly learn kung fu! I could learn every martial art there is and become a master of a multitude of fire arms! I could even learn to fly a Huey! ;^)
As for being taught in history classrooms, I suspect creationists will have to find some more archelogical evidence to suppose their hypothesis that the Universe was created 4000 years ago. Doubtless those historians studying societies older thand 4000 years will find themselves quite put out to be shown wrong.
;^)
I thought recorded history went back at least 6000 years. Some even believe the Earth to be closer to 10,000 years old. I'm not so sure that archaelogical evidence is useful in figuring out the age of the Earth- that has more to with finding out about about ancient civilizations and how they lived regardless of how many years ago they exisited. Finding the age of the Earth seems to bring us back into the realm of science.
I have no problem with creationism being taught as a religious idea. Or being taught apart from government-funded education. However, it seems odd to teach it along with evolution as a science, when it is not.
It seems odd to me to teach Darwinian macroevolution as a science when it has never been observed.
But, I wouldn't suggest teaching either creation or evolution as science since history and science are really not the same.
And it seems odd to mention it in history classes, when the vast majority of historians will tell you that the bible really isn't all that accurate.
The Bible is the most historically authenticated ancient set of documents we have. That's pretty miraculuous considering the majority of the world hates it and would like to see it completely go away.
That said, I always find philosophical debates on God fascinating, and I would encourage any school to have such discussions upon God. So long as both sides of the divide are represented.
Wouldn't be much of a debate if both sides were not well represented, would it?
Viruses and bacteria evolve into new species all the time, which is really quite the problem!
It is quite a problem in the world of medicine so I agree.
A virus "evolving" into a new type of virus is still a virus. I doubt the "new" species of virus has anything the previous one did not have.
Here is the real question: Has anybody ever observed a virus evolving into a bacteria or vice versa? That's what Darwinian Macroevolutiuon claims and that's wht needs to happen in order for it to have been observed.
The idea that you can separate 'macroevolution' from 'microevolution' always struck me as somewhat odd.
The idea that you can combine something observable with something unobservable seems odd to me.
That's believing in ponds but not believing in seas. However, since an omnipotent being could easily falsify any evidence that we find, so I do suppose it's academic arguing creationism from a rational point of view
Any real evidence that is found is part of God's creation, so of course He does not falsify it. The only thing that falsifies anything is if it was never true to begin with.
You're going to have to use your imagination, but, imagine your mind was put together seconds ago, but the atoms in your body were configured in such a way that you had a continuous memory, and didn't know you had just been created at all.
I'm not suggesting this is true; I merely want you to visualize this as a way of picturing how God could create time and exist outside it
May I try my hand making an analogy to express what I think you are getting at?
Let's take an mp3 of a song that lasts 3 minutes. Well how long does it take to listen to it at the correct speed? 3 minutes, obviously. But how long does it take to write that data to any Folder that you copy it to? Less than a second. That's 3 minutes worth of information (or memories) being written to a specific location in less than a second.
Please don't worry about how, long it took the band to actually record the song. My analogy breaks down there (as will any analogy if you take it too far.)
That is... unless you say the Folder represents "time" and if that's the case then the band exists outside of; transcends; and is not limited by "time" (even through they can "enter time" by browsing the Folder) just as God transcends; exists outside of; and it is not limited by time even though He can look inside of it and affect anything He chooses.
If Creationism is a valid scientific theory Creation is not a scientific theory, it is a historical event. That places it outside of the realm of science. Creation is also a supernatural event. This also places it outside of the realm of science. Science has do with seeing what is there and finding out how it works. Biology is a science. This is correct, biology is a science. Specifically it is the study of life. Evolution is a scientific theory, as there are simple tests one could devise to disprove it. This is not correct if you are refering to Darwinian Macroevolution. It is not something that can be observed and therefore does not pass the first step of the Scientific Method.
There's also that thing called "natural selection"
How do you naturally select what does not exist yet?
the (rare) beneficial mutations...
If beneficial mutations are rare, then how do you account for millions of years worth of evolution?