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 - 7th January 2014 at 22:57
Re 162
I like that. Is that another of your ‘facts’ ?
I thought you might, can I ask you if you think I’m making this up as I go along? and what are your thoughts on the subject and what evidence can you give to support It?
By: Lincoln 7 - 7th January 2014 at 22:35
Your still biting your tongue John, whatever happened to the old you?………:D
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: John Green - 7th January 2014 at 22:30
Re 162
I like that. Is that another of your ‘facts’ ?
By: charliehunt - 7th January 2014 at 21:45
Why? How does ridiculing someone’s deeply held belief assist in the maintenance of humanity? Not a whit I would suggest.
By: ZRX61 - 7th January 2014 at 21:13
No you are not and I too found quite distasteful the treatment of RpR whose views I am totally at odds with.
The level of intolerance in this thread has been surprising.
Maybe because ideologies than are counter-productive to the continuing existence of humanity need to be called into question & ridiculed?
By: Bruggen 130 - 7th January 2014 at 19:41
Re 155
Yes, settled for good, that is, until more information comes our way. You didn’t have anything to do with the interpretation of the data collected by the IPCC via their computer department ? I’ll bet a quid that you did.
Your knowledge of this subject is akin to a question a physicist asked a fool.
Physicist= What do you think is holding the Earth up?
Fool= It’s on the back of a giant turtle says the fool.
Physicist= So what do you think is holding the turtle up asked the physicist?
Fool= Well that is easy says the fool as he grins full of confidence and says it’s turtles all the way down:stupid:
By: charliehunt - 7th January 2014 at 19:35
😀
By: John Green - 7th January 2014 at 19:08
Re 159
Charlie, it’s only my name that is green !
By: charliehunt - 7th January 2014 at 18:50
Re 155
Yes, settled for good, that is, until more information comes our way. You didn’t have anything to do with the interpretation of the data collected by the IPCC via their computer department ? I’ll bet a quid that you did.
Extraordinary, you appear to be doubting Bruggen’s clear statement of fact. The matter is settled, can’t you read?
By: John Green - 7th January 2014 at 17:34
CD
Especially for you:
“In my Fathers House are many mansions”.
By: John Green - 7th January 2014 at 17:32
Re 155
Yes, settled for good, that is, until more information comes our way. You didn’t have anything to do with the interpretation of the data collected by the IPCC via their computer department ? I’ll bet a quid that you did.
By: RpR - 7th January 2014 at 15:26
What is the correct term to use when a major religion changes its position on something?
Didn’t the Catholic Church at one time support the belief that the Sun orbited the Earth? Didn’t the same religion persecute those that suggested, correctly, that the Earth actually orbited the Sun?
If it doesn’t say in the Bible ‘the Sun orbits the Earth’ (and I don’t suppose that it does) then why did the Catholic Church support this position? Was it the accepted ‘scientific’ position? Why does the Catholic Church now support the opposite view?
It seems a little unfair to criticise ‘science’ for changing its position when major religions do exactly the same.
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.
After the fall of the Roman Empire, Western civilization became as a whole increasingly stupid for quite some time with the RC church, at times, leading the way.
Power corrupts and and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
By: Bruggen 130 - 7th January 2014 at 14:35
O.K. Given the fact that this subject has been hammered to death here, and given that man has been trying to establish for God knows how long, about how the Universe, man etc, Black Holes, matter, anti matter etc.are real or not.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
Jim that debate was settled for good in 1992 with the data they got back from C.O.B.E satellite, something else that can be checked as can everything that I have said.:D
By: charliehunt - 7th January 2014 at 12:10
No you are not and I too found quite distasteful the treatment of RpR whose views I am totally at odds with.
The level of intolerance in this thread has been surprising.
By: John Green - 7th January 2014 at 10:35
Re 151
It seems to me and maybe a few others that RpR is very much in his depth on this subject. His ideas appear to be his and not the endless regurgitation of other peoples imagination of the origins, workings and longevity of the Universe.
These forums continue to astonish me when I consider the depth of hostility and vituperation shown to anyone who even appears to disagree with a favoured point of view and what others, such as myself, see as interesting ideas and theories with nothing cast in stone.
And you have the gall to disparage the Creationists for their conviction.
Let me propose a new Law of the Universe: The only certainty is uncertainty.
I’m almost certainly not the first to moot this !
By: Lincoln 7 - 7th January 2014 at 10:12
O.K. Given the fact that this subject has been hammered to death here, and given that man has been trying to establish for God knows how long, about how the Universe, man etc, Black Holes, matter, anti matter etc.are real or not, If tomorrow morning, we woke up to find that overnight, all these questions had undeniable answers, exactly what have we achieved? I think we should be looking forward to the future. Lets face it, we know more about the Universe than our OWN Planet Earth.
Just a thought.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: ZRX61 - 7th January 2014 at 01:20
Yes, it is called counterintuitive drivel on a good day and nonsense on all others.
It must have been a dark day when leading scientists, or at least ones who thought they were leading, decided that the true meaning of the word theory makes our semi-educated guesses look bad so let’s just change the meaning of the word; It is a lie but the masses are too stupid to notice.
You are WAY out of your depth in this thread.
By: ZRX61 - 7th January 2014 at 01:19
What is the correct term to use when a major religion changes its position on something?
Hypocrisy? 😉
By: Creaking Door - 7th January 2014 at 00:22
Yes, it is called counterintuitive drivel on a good day and nonsense on all others.
It must have been a dark day when leading scientists, or at least ones who thought they were leading, decided that the true meaning of the word theory makes our semi-educated guesses look bad so let’s just change the meaning of the word; It is a lie but the masses are too stupid to notice.
What is the correct term to use when a major religion changes its position on something?
Didn’t the Catholic Church at one time support the belief that the Sun orbited the Earth? Didn’t the same religion persecute those that suggested, correctly, that the Earth actually orbited the Sun?
If it doesn’t say in the Bible ‘the Sun orbits the Earth’ (and I don’t suppose that it does) then why did the Catholic Church support this position? Was it the accepted ‘scientific’ position? Why does the Catholic Church now support the opposite view?
It seems a little unfair to criticise ‘science’ for changing its position when major religions do exactly the same.
By: Bruggen 130 - 6th January 2014 at 23:40
Yes, it is called counterintuitive drivel on a good day and nonsense on all others.
It must have been a dark day when leading scientists, or at least ones who thought they were leading, decided that the true meaning of the word theory makes our semi-educated guesses look bad so let’s just change the meaning of the word; It is a lie but the masses are too stupid to notice.
Does that drivel that comes out of your mouth include the mainly american scientist that worked out how to put the good ol US of A on the moon, don’t worry if you don’t think they went there because your in good company on here.
Sign In
December 31, 2013 at 10:50 am