A friend on holiday in Iceland has just met up with a ‘creationist’
The wiki definition of this bizarre belief system follows
Creationism is the religious belief that life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being.
As science developed during the 18th century and forward, various views aimed at reconciling the Abrahamic and Genesis creation narratives with science developed in Western societies. Those holding that species had been created separately (such as Philip Gosse in 1847) were generally called “advocates of creation” but were also called “creationists”, as in private correspondence between Charles Darwin and his friends. As the creation–evolution controversy developed over time, the term “anti-evolutionists” became common. In 1929 in the United States, the term “creationism” first became associated with Christian fundamentalists, specifically with their rejection of human evolution and belief in a young Earth—although this usage was contested by other groups, such as old Earth creationists and evolutionary creationists, who hold different concepts of creation
Young-Earth creationism fosters the belief that God created the Earth within the last ten thousand years, literally as described in the Genesis creation narrative, within the approximate time-frame of biblical genealogies (detailed for example in the Ussher chronology). Most Young-Earth creationists believe that the Universe has a similar age as the Earth. A few assign a much older age to the Universe than to Earth. Some creationist thinkers attempt with Creationist cosmologies to give the universe an age consistent with the Ussher chronology and other Young-Earth time frames. Other Young-Earth creationists believe that the Earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age, so that the world appears to be much older than it is, and that this appearance is what gives the geological findings and other methods of dating the earth and the universe their much longer timelines. However, this view has theological implications – an intentional appearance of age is form of false evidence and so a form of deception.
So to sum up it, as science grew it became apparent that the Adam & Eve story was arrant nonsense. So this idea grew up to try and keep the fantasy of a supreme being alive. Key to this is that he knocked-up the earth (and presumably the solar system) some 6,000 – 10,000 years back.
Obviously, since carbon dating can with a fair degree of accuracy take us a lot further back than that it is insupportable, yet there are still a huge number of people who in some way think this is The Truth. Echoes of the Burma Spitfire beliefs.
As the other religious discussion has proved even-tempered and interesting I thought I would chuck this one in for people’s opinion.
So. Complete fruitloops, or in some way I have missed, explicable?
Moggy
By: charliehunt - 10th January 2014 at 13:46
I knew this thread needed a woman’s touch!!:eagerness: And in many ways you are right – we are only here for a blink of an eye. But think what man has achieved in the blink so far – some terrible but much good too. I suppose some of us are just interested in discussing the question you asked. And if man had not been asking questions and discovering we might all have been here for an even shorter blink!
But we should certainly smile more about it, that’s for sure!;)
By: BumbleBee - 10th January 2014 at 13:35
Gentlemen – ( for as far as I can tell, this has been an all -male thread up to now ) – I’d like to ask a question –
Just why is this subject so important ?
Isn’t it a fact that nobody can tell for certain how the world began ? The religious have their idea, it suits them and they’ll stick to it. Scientists have their own particular theory, and get upset when people challenge it, BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY’RE RIGHT.
Why does it matter ? Each of us is only here for the blink of an eye, before you know it you’re gone and the world keeps on turning.
Look around, aren’t you lucky to be alive ? Compared to my ancestors I’ve been blessed beyond measure in matters of health,education,travel and now communication. I can power up my laptop,tablet,even my phone, and hold the world in my hands.
Instead of calling each other names because you disagree, go out and look at aeroplanes, walk the dog, hug a hoodie or even give the wife a smacking kiss.
Or maybe just explain to a mere female why you’ve been worrying away at this subject for so long.
By: Creaking Door - 10th January 2014 at 12:35
Euclid, Archimedes, Pythagoras, Newton and many others were first and foremost, thinkers. For the most part they existed and fomulated their work before the age and assistance of sophisticated or even primitive laboratory equipment…
I do not dispute that they were great ‘thinkers’; I just maintain that they were only able to think about the things that were known to them in the universe they inhabited. This is why none of these great thinkers had anything to say (I think?) about black-holes, radio-waves, radioactivity, bacteria, DNA and so-on. I am sure that if they had had access to the scientific instruments to at least be aware of the existence of these things then they would probably have contributed in those fields too.
By: Derekf - 10th January 2014 at 12:32
Bruggen – the more you resort to childish personal abuse the more you show the weakness of your argument and your inability to debate it.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black…
Keep it up Bruggen 130, with any luck you’ll end on charliehunt’s ignore list, like others who get the better of him in a debate. You’ll know you’ve won the argument then.:)
The ignorance shown on this thread is staggering, centuries of discovery, fine-tuning of theories and laws dismissed as ” no-one knows” No, we don’t know everything but we know an awful lot more than we used to.
And I am incredulous that anybody could suggest that ‘less reading’ is the way to find out about the universe we live in!
Absolutley. A staggering comment, but in some ways hardly surprising.
By: John Green - 10th January 2014 at 12:11
Re 194
Bruggen 130
You’re making a fool of yourself. Give up.
By: John Green - 10th January 2014 at 12:09
Re 198
CD
Euclid, Archimedes, Pythagoras, Newton and many others were first and foremost, thinkers. For the most part they existed and fomulated their work before the age and assistance of sophisticated or even primitive laboratory equipment. They had one thing in common; they were all capable – and showed that capacity- of original thought.
By: Creaking Door - 10th January 2014 at 10:22
Your a Pillock…..your that stupid…
Oh, the irony! :rolleyes:
By: Bruggen 130 - 10th January 2014 at 10:08
Bruggen – the more you resort to childish personal abuse the more you show the weakness of your argument and your inability to debate it.
Sorry I’ll us words you seem to Prefer, Your a Pillock, is that better, and if you think your replies to this thread is debating then you need to read what you wrote, your that stupid you put up a link to a NASA site which will verify all I’ve said
By: Bruggen 130 - 10th January 2014 at 09:57
Thanks for that link, what a stunning image.
By: Creaking Door - 10th January 2014 at 09:47
He would not have agreed with your rather silly suggestion about ‘burning the books’…
Sorry, I couldn’t resist; it wasn’t a serious suggestion…..just poking a little fun at your ‘less reading’ comment…
…not that book-burning doesn’t have any historical precedent!
It sounds like your friend possess an uncommon intellect; one of the problems with the progress of science is that it is increasingly difficult for the layman to have access to the research, scientific equipment or data to form his or her independent ideas about, say, the origins of the universe…..even if they are blessed with sufficient intellect for the increasingly complex scientific theories.
In the past I do not think that it was any accident that the church took particular interest in education and, to a lesser degree scientific discovery; what chance has ‘thinking for yourself’ got after being indoctrinated in ‘Sunday School’?
By: Student Pilot - 10th January 2014 at 06:01
The “My invisible friend is better than your invisible friend” always ends in tears. If anybody believes in the tripe that’s trotted out with religions then you aren’t going to change their minds with reasonable logic.
By: charliehunt - 10th January 2014 at 05:32
Bruggen – the more you resort to childish personal abuse the more you show the weakness of your argument and your inability to debate it.
By: ZRX61 - 9th January 2014 at 23:37
By: Bruggen 130 - 9th January 2014 at 23:29
According to my daily update from NASA, the “Big Bang” happened Billions of years ago, and they are STILL, trying to find out what caused it.And if they don’t know, then who does?.
I would suggest that one or two on this particular debate, subscribe to their daily news update. I find it most informative. There is also doubt, that one or two “Theories”, their words, not mine, re Einstines, are in doubt.Jim.
Lincoln .7
Jim I never once said anywhere on this thread that I know how the Big Bang happened because now one does, but it happened when I said it did.
Phil.
By: Bruggen 130 - 9th January 2014 at 23:22
No one does, Linc – that’s the bone of contention in this thread. It’s just the best theory around at the moment. But there are others and some are gaining in credence. And I think you need to look further afield than NASA to find out what is happening in the world of astrophysics. The general consensus is that the Universe is 13.8 billion years old and that has been the consensus for many years.
This is one of a number of excellent sites for cosmological news!
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/cosmology/distant-galaxies/
Hang on you said I was talking B&llock when I told you that, now it’s the general consensus, and now you are an authority on the subject, this is one of a number of excellent sites for cosmological new, as if you read them all the time when the truth is you probably only found it today, what a joke you are.
By: Bruggen 130 - 9th January 2014 at 23:10
– nothing more to be said on the matter! Thank god!!:highly_amused:What a pillock…………:rolleyes:
I don’t you get it do you fruitloop you have not said a word on the Matter, what other way is there to describe your stupidity, you say that Hoyle was a family friend yet you know nothing about him, you said you have read most of the books I mentioned yet you could not quote a line from any of them, you do it all the time on other threads and get away with, your just a two sh!ts, if I’ve had one sh!t you,ve had two, the worlds full of your kind.
By: charliehunt - 9th January 2014 at 14:55
No one does, Linc – that’s the bone of contention in this thread. It’s just the best theory around at the moment. But there are others and some are gaining in credence. And I think you need to look further afield than NASA to find out what is happening in the world of astrophysics. The general consensus is that the Universe is 13.8 billion years old and that has been the consensus for many years.
This is one of a number of excellent sites for cosmological news!
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/cosmology/distant-galaxies/
By: Lincoln 7 - 9th January 2014 at 14:46
According to my daily update from NASA, the “Big Bang” happened Billions of years ago, and they are STILL, trying to find out what caused it.And if they don’t know, then who does?.
I would suggest that one or two on this particular debate, subscribe to their daily news update. I find it most informative. There is also doubt, that one or two “Theories”, their words, not mine, re Einstines, are in doubt.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: John Green - 9th January 2014 at 14:43
Re 181
CD
“……Less reading…”
Here is a short anecdote. It is true. A few years ago I had a friend who was an uneducated genius. To him a ‘degree’ was only an increment of temperature. He’d had a standard education and was literate and numerate but had never been to either University or thru’ Further Education.
The term ‘genius’ is overworked and mis-used. I call my friend a genius because he was capable of original thought. He was capable of creative and original ideas and did it routinely. He could and did transcribe those thoughts and ideas into practical working models and demonstrate their every day practical application.
His day job was with the Post Office developing telecommunication innovations (shades of Tommy Flowers). When asked to explain his unique ability he thought that it was because he hadn’t been to University and hadn’t been taught to think along rigid lines and had his mind organised along orthodox pathways via huge imputs of the ideas of others.
He would not have agreed with your rather silly suggestion about ‘burning the books’ he was too adult for that but, he would have agreed with ‘less reading’. I’m just sorry that I never did ask him about his answers – if any, to the questions above. That might have been interesting.
By: charliehunt - 9th January 2014 at 14:42
Well I’m thick and John’s wrong, so that’s it – nothing more to be said on the matter! Thank god!!:highly_amused:What a pillock…………:rolleyes:
Sign In
December 31, 2013 at 10:50 am