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: Bruggen 130 - 9th January 2014 at 14:35
Re 178
Bruggen 130I’ve never ever told you that you are wrong in your convictions. How would I know? I haven’t a clue ! You could be right and the Cosmos is made of green cheese. Don’t please tell me you never said that – I know you didn’t. All I’ve ever written is an admonition not to regurgitate other ideas – think for yourself. Your conclusions – or mine – are as good and as valid as any when considering the origins of the Universe; where has it come from, where is it going, what is its purpose ? As far as we know, no one knows the answers to these questions and perhaps, never will.
Re 179
Bruggen, after that ‘knife in the ribs’ via Fred Hoyle and Charliehunt – I did laugh – I should switch of the light and tiptoe quietly from the room, closing the door firmly.
It’s simple even for you, I’m right and your so wrong that you don’t even know it:stupid:
By: Bruggen 130 - 9th January 2014 at 14:32
[QUOTE=charliehunt;2103102]It took me a while to understand your last few words, but I very much appreciate you keeping an eye on my posts. As debated a few weeks ago in another thread, I never know nor care how many I or anyone has.:rolleyes: I did read about him many years ago and have a great respect for him. What is the “noble prize”, by the way….?[/QUOTE
You that thick you have to ask, can’t work out a spelling mistak:very_drunk: it don’t matter because he didn’t win it anyway.
By: John Green - 9th January 2014 at 14:14
Re 178
Bruggen 130
I’ve never ever told you that you are wrong in your convictions. How would I know? I haven’t a clue ! You could be right and the Cosmos is made of green cheese. Don’t please tell me you never said that – I know you didn’t. All I’ve ever written is an admonition not to regurgitate other ideas – think for yourself. Your conclusions – or mine – are as good and as valid as any when considering the origins of the Universe; where has it come from, where is it going, what is its purpose ? As far as we know, no one knows the answers to these questions and perhaps, never will.
Re 179
Bruggen, after that ‘knife in the ribs’ via Fred Hoyle and Charliehunt – I did laugh – I should switch of the light and tiptoe quietly from the room, closing the door firmly.
By: Creaking Door - 9th January 2014 at 13:06
I wondered where exactly this figure of a ‘6000 year old Earth’ came from; I was fairly sure that the Bible(s) did not give an exact date for the ‘creation’ of the Earth.
Apparently, it turns out, that the ‘6000 year’ age of the Earth is calculated (up to a point anyway) by the method of genealogy; knowing the age of a father when his son was born. For example, Methuselah was 187 years old when his son Lamech was born, and Lamech was 182 years old when his son Noah was born…
…and Noah was 600 years old when he built his Ark.
It is not possible with this method of genealogy to arrive accurately at the birth of Jesus but by using other historical events, as recorded in the Bible(s), it is possible to get a reasonably concise ‘age’ for the Earth.
By: charliehunt - 9th January 2014 at 10:36
It took me a while to understand your last few words, but I very much appreciate you keeping an eye on my posts. As debated a few weeks ago in another thread, I never know nor care how many I or anyone has.:rolleyes: I did read about him many years ago and have a great respect for him. What is the “noble prize”, by the way….?
By: Bruggen 130 - 9th January 2014 at 10:08
No need to patronise me Bruggen and my education was well formed without your intervention.
Fred Hoyle was a family friend so I don’t need a lesson in his career. Since he rejected the theory you are so wedded to I wondered why you included him in your list above. The more you post the sillier you appear.
Well you should at least read about him, just because he rejected it does not mean he was right, he made a massive contribution to understanding the big bang, trying to appear clever by association:stupid: and you have front to call silly. he should have received a noble prize but didn’t because he was a gobby mouthed Yorkshireman, a lot like people who talk a lot but say very little. 5,661 and counting.:eagerness:
By: Creaking Door - 9th January 2014 at 09:53
I am really surprised how aggressive people are becoming here when it comes to favouring any particular theory as to the origins of the current universe; whether it be a scientific or religious theory. And I am incredulous that anybody could suggest that ‘less reading’ is the way to find out about the universe we live in! What’s next; maybe burning those books?
I wonder if four hundred years ago people argued so vehemently as to whether the speed of falling bodies was governed only by their weight? After all this is only ‘science’ and not religion; science is only right until somebody proves that it is wrong and then, of course, science is still right. Religion, on the other hand, or rather the word of ‘god’ as religion tells us, can never be wrong, about anything, ever, because how can you have ‘faith’ in something that claims to be infallible and, yet, gets stuff wrong?
By: trumper - 9th January 2014 at 09:08
Sometimes the not knowing,the mystery and the journey towards finding the right answers is more fun and educationally rewarding than getting there.The fact that even on this forum which is predominantly an aircraft forum [albeit the general discussion part] proves there is a HUGE wealth of intelligence and outside interests in people.
All ages,all backgrounds and alot of theories 🙂
By: charliehunt - 9th January 2014 at 05:37
No need to patronise me Bruggen and my education was well formed without your intervention.
Fred Hoyle was a family friend so I don’t need a lesson in his career. Since he rejected the theory you are so wedded to I wondered why you included him in your list above. The more you post the sillier you appear.
By: Bruggen 130 - 8th January 2014 at 23:59
RE 174
Apart from the Hubble, they all discuss propositions. There might be proof of these propositions somewhere but, at present, that proof is unobtainable.
Bruggen, I think that you have the best of intentions but, you are misled. Try less reading. Find a quiet corner and do some thinking. You might yourself, come up with one or two good ideas about the nature and purpose of the Universe.
Try less reading, if I did that I would be as daft as you, so no thanks. All I’ve had off you is you telling me I’m wrong, but not why I’m wrong, for the simple reason you don’t know what I’m talking about and you never will in a million years. So don’t tell I’m misled, because I’m amazed at your lack of knowledge, you can’t even bluff your way through a conversation. I know I’m right about this, you on the other hand don’t know anything. well apart from what cordite smells like.
By: Bruggen 130 - 8th January 2014 at 23:33
The very same Fred Hoyle who rejected the Big Bang in favour of Steady State but correct me if I am wrong.
Yes and who was also proved wrong, now I’m going to educate you Charles, Fred was a genius who did indeed favour the steady state model and was the Big Bangs biggest critic, if you had gone a little deeper than just grasping at the first thing that you think proves a point, you would have found out that it was actually Fred who coined the phrase the Big Bang in a radio broadcast in 1950, he was using it in a derisory tone but here’s the thing it caught on world wide, how ironic is that. but after the steady state model was thrown out he went on to find out how the heavy elements were formed, the elements like iron, carbon, the things that you are made of were formed in the exploding supernovas that seeded the early universe with all the heavy elements.
By: John Green - 8th January 2014 at 21:12
RE 174
Apart from the Hubble, they all discuss propositions. There might be proof of these propositions somewhere but, at present, that proof is unobtainable.
Bruggen, I think that you have the best of intentions but, you are misled. Try less reading. Find a quiet corner and do some thinking. You might yourself, come up with one or two good ideas about the nature and purpose of the Universe.
By: charliehunt - 8th January 2014 at 20:39
The very same Fred Hoyle who rejected the Big Bang in favour of Steady State but correct me if I am wrong.
By: Bruggen 130 - 8th January 2014 at 20:11
Re 167
My thought, is that you have ‘brainwashed’ yourself. I think that you are genuinely convinced of the truth of your regurgitations. I can get quite excited about endless speculation and I would guess that somewhere about 98% of what is under discussion about the Cosmos is just that.
I can’t give you any evidence because there is none or, very little. As I’ve commented previously, I’m certain only about the uncertainty.
The only person that’s uncertain is you with such a weak answer, the reason you can’t give me evidence is because you refuse to look, which if you did you would see that what you think you know about it is very little,
I’m Quoting you the writings of Einstein , Hawking. Hubble, oh and a certain Yorkshire man by the name of Fred Hoyle. ( that should get the Yorkies to look) are you so backward in your thinking that you think those men
where talking b%llock . all you keep saying “we don’t know” well we do know, it’s just you that does not because your to lazy to put a bit of effort in to finding out.
By: Creaking Door - 8th January 2014 at 18:57
I see; don’t forget that I’m a simple soul that needs things spelling-out to me!
…the occasional shifts of emphasis in the teachings of some religious organisations.
…and the not-so ‘occasional’ fundamental shifts!
By: John Green - 8th January 2014 at 18:10
Re 169
CD
The ‘mansions’ comment was made in reply to your comment 149. It was intended to be read as a secular remark dealing with your statement concerning the occasional shifts of emphasis in the teachings of some religious organisations.
By: John Green - 8th January 2014 at 17:58
Re 167
My thought, is that you have ‘brainwashed’ yourself. I think that you are genuinely convinced of the truth of your regurgitations. I can get quite excited about endless speculation and I would guess that somewhere about 98% of what is under discussion about the Cosmos is just that.
I can’t give you any evidence because there is none or, very little. As I’ve commented previously, I’m certain only about the uncertainty.
By: ZRX61 - 8th January 2014 at 05:56
As to what it means, when I did look it up, what I found was quite a lot of confusion; it seems not even all Catholics, let alone all Christians, can agree on what it means.
Talking of which, I live in a town of about 200,000. We have one mosque, one sikh temple and SEVENTY different christian cults including all the main ones..
By: Creaking Door - 8th January 2014 at 01:00
Especially for you: “In my Fathers House are many mansions”.
I’ll be honest with you; I had to look this one up, although I was almost certain it was a passage from the (or a) Bible.
As to what it means, when I did look it up, what I found was quite a lot of confusion; it seems not even all Catholics, let alone all Christians, can agree on what it means. As I dug deeper it seems that there was disagreement about what was the correct translation from the original (Hebrew, Aramaic?), what the words were actually referring to or whether there was some implied meaning that differed from the usual meaning of the words.
I started to come across technical words like ecumenism, purgatory, limbo, tabernacle and eucharist that have specific technical religious meanings; not to be confused with some that have different meanings that are used in everyday speech.
I started to come across religious conventions, such as ‘Vatican II’ that seem to suggest that there had been some sort of regulated changes to the meaning or wording of the original (translated) text that needed to be codified so that religious professionals were ‘all singing from the same song-sheet’.
All in all, it started to sound like, well, science! Or at least it started to sound like the sort of ‘certainty’ that has drawn much criticism during this thread when it has been directed against science.
By: Creaking Door - 8th January 2014 at 00:23
The Roman Catholic Church has engaged in many things that go counter to what Jesus said those on earth representing him are to do. It is run by men and mankind as a whole is extremely far from perfect…
But is that not the central problem with all organised religions; men intercede on behalf of ‘god’?
Was the Bible written by God? Was the Bible written by Jesus? Or was it written by men?
I have nothing in particular against the Christian faith but it was the faith that I was raised and educated in (by the State, not by my parents) so I am more familiar with it than any other major religion; I am sure the other major religions will have a similar relationship with their deities and religious texts.
Sign In
December 31, 2013 at 10:50 am