Problem with Genesis

PawnCurry

Spirituality

28 Nov '05 01:37

XanthosNZ
Cancerous Bus Crash
p^2.sin(phi)
Joined
06 Sep '04
Moves
25076
28 Nov '05 21:271 edit
Originally posted by Halitose
[b]Creationism, on the other hand, asserts that this creation occurred a mere six to ten thousnad years ago.

Not all; some take a more liberal interpretation of Genesis:

Genesis 1:1-2 indicates a beginning of space, time and matter as proposed by Einstein in his theory of general relativity. The initial state of planet earth would be empty and voi ...[text shortened]... s timeframe, evolution may or may not be used as the mechanism for the introduction of new life.[/b]
That's not Young Earth creationism which is what I was talking about. Young Earth creationism states that the Earth is 5000-10000 years old and was created in 6 days as we know days. A completely literal take on Genesis which is what PawnCurry said his girlfriend has. I can quite rightly call Young Earth creationists ignorant as their belief goes against all available evidence.

The outline you have given isn't Young Earth creationism and therefore isn't what I was talking about at all. An argument about whether God is behind the Big Bang and evolution is another matter entirely and indeed if I were to call someone believing God was behind things ignorant I would indeed be hypocritical (assuming I also called Christians arrogant for saying the same about non-Christians). However I didn't and haven't.

The difference is the existence of God has no evidence either way however there is a mountain of evidence against YEC.
KnightWulfe
Chess Samurai
Yes
Joined
26 Apr '04
Moves
66095
28 Nov '05 21:38
Originally posted by XanthosNZ
The difference is the existence of God has no evidence either way however there is a mountain of evidence against YEC.

Und hence, one of the foundations that the teaching of the Bible is inherrantly incorrect. The YEC teaching is part of the Book of Genesis. The Book of Genesis is the first book of the Bible.
XanthosNZ
Cancerous Bus Crash
p^2.sin(phi)
Joined
06 Sep '04
Moves
25076
28 Nov '05 22:21
Originally posted by KnightWulfe
Actually almost all Christians don't follow a Young Earth version of Creationism. This doesn't invalidate the rest of their faith and nor should it.
KellyJay
Walk your Faith
USA
Joined
24 May '04
Moves
157807
28 Nov '05 23:44
Originally posted by KnightWulfe
Look through history - You will find that with the spread of Christianity through the known world, more traditions were picked up as time passed. It started with the move of Christ's day in the 6th century from the End of Sept to Dec with the Yule festival of the celtic people of Briton. It was done after the fall of the Roman empire to prevent to the f ...[text shortened]... it for my Ancient and Medieval Civilizations class. Cant promise it, but I'd be happy to look.
I'm aware of what you are talking about, and I'm telling you that
is not Christianity, those were power plays by people who wanted
control. Christianity, if it is just a means of control, if it is just another
way of self help, then what you say is correct; however, Christianity
is God reaching down to man through Jesus Christ. That has nothing
to do with the power plays by man when they force others to accept
something and by rule of law to make it happen. If it isn't a choice of
the heart it is not real Christianity.
Kelly
Wulebgr
Angler
River City
Joined
08 Dec '04
Moves
16907
29 Nov '05 01:24
Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm aware of what you are talking about, and I'm telling you that
is not Christianity, those were power plays by people who wanted
control. Christianity, if it is just a means of control, if it is just another
way of self help, then what you say is correct; however, Christianity
is God reaching down to man through Jesus Christ. That has nothing
to do ...[text shortened]... f law to make it happen. If it isn't a choice of
the heart it is not real Christianity.
Kelly
You are correct, KJ. Prior to the conversion of Constantine, Christians and Christianity were less concerned with human power plays. However, since his conversion, Christianity has been the means employed by all sorts of miscreants who seek and or wield power. The current American regime is a case in point. Cultural conservatives (calling themsleves Christians) provided the edge needed to put into power one of the worst leaders in modern history.
Nemesio
Ursulakantor
Pittsburgh, PA
Joined
05 Mar '02
Moves
34824
29 Nov '05 05:18
Originally posted by KellyJay
That has nothing
to do with the power plays by man when they force others to accept
something and by rule of law to make it happen. If it isn't a choice of
the heart it is not real Christianity.
I am astounded that you would write something like this, and yet
would impose at least one law (if not many) on the basis of something
you refuse to defend.

I find myself stymied by your posts. Some reflect such thoughtfulness
(like this one), some are the words of an oppressor.

Nemesio
KellyJay
Walk your Faith
USA
Joined
24 May '04
Moves
157807
29 Nov '05 19:42
Originally posted by Nemesio
I am astounded that you would write something like this, and yet
would impose at least one law (if not many) on the basis of something
you refuse to defend.

I find myself stymied by your posts. Some reflect such thoughtfulness
(like this one), some are the words of an oppressor.

Nemesio
I'm not sure what you think I'm pushing to oppress others with,
but thanks for the compliment here anyway.
Kelly
KellyJay
Walk your Faith
USA
Joined
24 May '04
Moves
157807
29 Nov '05 19:52
Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Actually almost all Christians don't follow a Young Earth version of Creationism. This doesn't invalidate the rest of their faith and nor should it.
I'll bottom line this for you from the perspective from someone
who is a "Young Earth Creationist", and does not mind saying so.

The universe is what it is, it is as old as it is no matter what I, or
you, or anyone else believes it to be. You can use whatever you
want to figure out what the age of the earth is. It then becomes
if it is accurate or not, you are placing your faith in its truthfulness,
its accuracy, and our abilities to grasp the data we are given correctly.
Since you were not there when it was started, I was not there when
it started, and no human you know or don't know personally was
there when it was started, it boils down to what you believe is the
correct and proper way to know how old it is.
Kelly
KnightWulfe
Chess Samurai
Yes
Joined
26 Apr '04
Moves
66095
29 Nov '05 20:16
Originally posted by KellyJay
I'll bottom line this for you from the perspective from someone
who is a "Young Earth Creationist", and does not mind saying so.

The universe is what it is, it is as old as it is no matter what I, or
you, or anyone else believes it to be. You can use whatever you
want to figure out what the age of the earth is. It then becomes
if it is accurate or ...[text shortened]... it boils down to what you believe is the
correct and proper way to know how old it is.
Kelly
KJ -
That is an EXCELLENT statement. In the same regard.... that statement can be applied to any religion, idea, thought that humans can explain. We, as humans, do not have certainty in any of it.
YEC, Evolution, Christianity, Hinuism, Budhism.... not a single bit of it. It all comes down to what you believe and what settles YOUR mind and spirit within you. You can beleive that God handed down the tablets with the Commandments or that Vishnu sustains all things or that Divinity is within one's self.
If I knew how, I would recommend that post. Maybe I cannot as I am not a paying member of the site.
Halitose
I stink, ergo I am
On the rebound
Joined
14 Jul '05
Moves
4464
29 Nov '05 20:221 edit
Originally posted by KnightWulfe
KJ -
That is an EXCELLENT statement. In the same regard.... that statement can be applied to any religion, idea, thought that humans can explain. We, as humans, do not have certainty in any of it.
YEC, Evolution, Christianity, Hinuism, Budhism.... not a single bit of it. It all comes down to what you believe and what settles YOUR mind and spirit within ...[text shortened]... I knew how, I would recommend that post. Maybe I cannot as I am not a paying member of the site.
If I knew how, I would recommend that post.

Lemme help you out there.
XanthosNZ
Cancerous Bus Crash
p^2.sin(phi)
Joined
06 Sep '04
Moves
25076
29 Nov '05 20:35
Originally posted by KellyJay
I'll bottom line this for you from the perspective from someone
who is a "Young Earth Creationist", and does not mind saying so.

The universe is what it is, it is as old as it is no matter what I, or
you, or anyone else believes it to be. You can use whatever you
want to figure out what the age of the earth is. It then becomes
if it is accurate or ...[text shortened]... it boils down to what you believe is the
correct and proper way to know how old it is.
Kelly
So various types of radioactive dating (Carbon dating being but the most well-known), millions of years worth of icecores, thousands of tons of fossils, various geologic features (Irridium deposits at specific layers, the Decaan Traps etc.), all of them are wrong? Not just wrong but radioactive dating is out by a factor of thousands?
KnightWulfe
Chess Samurai
Yes
Joined
26 Apr '04
Moves
66095
29 Nov '05 20:49
Originally posted by XanthosNZ
So various types of radioactive dating (Carbon dating being but the most well-known), millions of years worth of icecores, thousands of tons of fossils, various geologic features (Irridium deposits at specific layers, the Decaan Traps etc.), all of them are wrong? Not just wrong but radioactive dating is out by a factor of thousands?
It is my belief that all of that is correct, but what she is saying is that - it is accurate only if you believe it to be. What if those number are not accurate? What if there is a key piece to the puzzle that is missed that is causing a gross misrepresentation of the numbers? What if there is something that science has not yet discovered that actually indicates that the earth is 9 billion years old and not just 4.5 becuase there was a single factor that was missing that we simply do not know we are currently missing?

All in all....we cannot be 100% sure of it.
KnightWulfe
Chess Samurai
Yes
Joined
26 Apr '04
Moves
66095
29 Nov '05 20:50
Originally posted by Halitose
[b]If I knew how, I would recommend that post.

Lemme help you out there.[/b]
Thanks
XanthosNZ
Cancerous Bus Crash
p^2.sin(phi)
Joined
06 Sep '04
Moves
25076
29 Nov '05 20:58
Originally posted by KnightWulfe
It is my belief that all of that is correct, but what she is saying is that - it is accurate only if you believe it to be. What if those number are not accurate? What if there is a key piece to the puzzle that is missed that is causing a gross misrepresentation of the numbers? What if there is something that science has not yet discovered that actually i ...[text shortened]... we simply do not know we are currently missing?

All in all....we cannot be 100% sure of it.
The difference between a scientific approach and a religious approach is scientists (there have been exceptions) would not be afraid to revise their estimates if new evidence is presented.

Back at the beginning of the 20th century conventional wisdom had the age of the earth as somewhere between 50 and 400 million years. Then Lord Rutherford helped show that some of the assumptions used to reach those numbers weren't correct (he found a secondary source of heat). Religious consensus has shown itself to be completely inflexible and just attempt to ignore anything that contradicts their viewpoints.
KnightWulfe
Chess Samurai
Yes
Joined
26 Apr '04
Moves
66095
30 Nov '05 04:09
Originally posted by XanthosNZ
The difference between a scientific approach and a religious approach is scientists (there have been exceptions) would not be afraid to revise their estimates if new evidence is presented.

Back at the beginning of the 20th century conventional wisdom had the age of the earth as somewhere between 50 and 400 million years. Then Lord Rutherford helped sho ...[text shortened]... be completely inflexible and just attempt to ignore anything that contradicts their viewpoints.
X -
As I said, I agree. I am essentially an Atheistic Evolutionist. But I also admit that I could be wrong. ANY one of these sciences, "truths", religions, philosophies....any of them, all of the could be wrong. It very well could be that the purpose and reason for existence is so out of the scope of human understanding that no one will ever be able to define it, be it with faith and acceptance or science and emperical data.
Ever day new information about something is discovered. Who is to say that 10 years from now we dont find out another piece that Lord Rutherford and everyone else missed?

Yes, those of a religious path accept things for a different reason than those of a scientific one....

In the end....who is really to say who is right? I dont think there is a right answer yet. We simply dont know and understand enough.

I am sure that We, the collective human species, will argue this until the end of the race as well what is right and what is wrong. Maybe we will learn all there is someday, but I doubt it.