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 - 6th January 2014 at 23:25
RE 143
If it’s a theory from you then I certainly won’t get upset.
So, you think I live in a scrapyard !
Now if I was Charlie I would probably reply ” I see you spotted the deliberate mistake” but I’m not so I wont, nice reply quite funny, at least you have a sense of humour even if you have not got
a clue how old the Cosmos is, (sick of writing Universe.)
By: RpR - 6th January 2014 at 23:20
For those among us who still don’t get it…
Scientists use the word theory in a way that differs from its usage in everyday speech.
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.
By: ZRX61 - 6th January 2014 at 22:22
Re 139
Your second paragraph redeems the nonsense of the first.
Your incomprehension is not my responsibility.
By: John Green - 6th January 2014 at 21:57
RE 143
If it’s a theory from you then I certainly won’t get upset.
So, you think I live in a scrapyard !
By: Bruggen 130 - 6th January 2014 at 21:32
Eden channel 9.0pm? That must be TV ? I expect you read and contribute to Wiki as well !
I think you belong in a nursing home,:eagerness: but it’s only a theory so don’t get upset:rolleyes:
By: John Green - 6th January 2014 at 21:09
Re 139
Your second paragraph redeems the nonsense of the first.
By: John Green - 6th January 2014 at 21:07
Eden channel 9.0pm? That must be TV ? I expect you read and contribute to Wiki as well !
By: charliehunt - 6th January 2014 at 20:54
Indeed so, but a pity there seemed to be the need to post the comment. Your last sentence of your penultimate paragraph is apposite.
By: ZRX61 - 6th January 2014 at 20:41
For those among us who still don’t get it…
Scientists use the word theory in a way that differs from its usage in everyday speech. In everyday speech a theory is no different from a hypothesis – a supposition that has not been verified. A scientific theory, on the other hand, is a synthesis of a large body of information that encompasses well-tested and verified hypotheses about certain aspects of the natural world. Physicists, for example, speak of the theory of the atom, chemist speak of molecular theory, and biologists speak of cell theory.
The theories of science are not fixed, but undergo change. Scientific theories evolve as they go through stages of redefinition and refinement. During the past hundred years, for example, the theory of the atom has been repeatedly refined as new evidence of atomic behavior has been gathered. Similarly, chemists have refined their view of the way molecules bind together, and biologists have refined the cell theory. The refinement of theories is a strength of science, not a weakness. Many people feel that it is a sign of weakness to change their minds. Competent scientists must be experts at changing their minds. They change their minds, however, only when confronted with solid experimental evidence to the contrary or when a conceptually simpler hypothesis forces them to a new point of view. More important than defending beliefs is improving them. Better hypotheses are made by those who are honest in the face of experimental evidence.
& then there are people who think The Flintstones is a documentary…
By: Bruggen 130 - 6th January 2014 at 20:34
Phil. I think that most of us on here, just don’t, or ever will have the acumen to understand Quantum Physics, or the like. Men have spent most of their working lives trying to understand the very things we have discussed, but are still no further forward than they were, when they started.
See Jim that first line is one of the problems some on here have, Quantum Physics deals mainly with the physics at the atomic level, the thing I’m trying to explain is all about the universe on the very large scale (Astrophysics) and yes we are a lot further than when we started, every thing I’ve said about this is in text books and it can be verified, they explain how we know that this universe started with the Big Bang billions of years ago. Oh and Star Trek in coming along slowly but it is coming.:D
BTW there is a program on the eden ch tonight at 9pm with Brian Cox it’s Wonders of the Universe watch it if you can.
Regards Phil.
By: Lincoln 7 - 6th January 2014 at 14:23
Phil. I think that most of us on here, just don’t, or ever will have the acumen to understand Quantum Physics, or the like. Men have spent most of their working lives trying to understand the very things we have discussed, but are still no further forward than they were, when they started.
I am somewhat of a Trekky myself, and my wife derides me, as I subscribe to the NASA Space site, and tell her what, and when the next rocket will be taking off etc, Seriously, taking our travels into space, has brought about many new innovations, and inventions, namely Teflon, Tazers, I did read some time ago, that one group of scientists have managed to tellyport a small object, from one side of a laboratory to the other.
And on that note………………………………………………………”Beam me up Scottie”………:D
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: Bruggen 130 - 6th January 2014 at 12:36
C’mon Bruggen, just admit your argument comes from watching too many programs of Startreck Enterprise, :).
Jim.
Lincoln .7
No Linc it comes from reading a lot of books on the universe and not from a little bit of info that you get from the odd Readers Digest at the Doctors, and don’t knock Star Trek or I’ll beat you to death with your zimmer frame, that’s a joke BTW,:D to be honest I’m amazed at the lack of knowledge on the subject on this site. There is a Program on tomorrow night “Stargazing Live” you might just find it interesting.
Take care Jim.
Phil.
By: Lincoln 7 - 6th January 2014 at 00:33
C’mon Bruggen, just admit your argument comes from watching too many programs of Startreck Enterprise, :).
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: Bruggen 130 - 5th January 2014 at 22:38
Re 128
CD
It’s not the ‘investigation’ that is ‘guesswork’ it is the result !
No, you are right, we shouldn’t stop trying. I am not certain that ‘we will never know’. I did write that PROBABLY we will never know.
Bruggen’s unthinking ‘certainty’ is like yours unfounded. If there is anything that is certain about the construction and operation of the Universe it is its uncertainty.
This uncertainty and attendamt contradictions, especially regarding measurement and observation, is perhaps best summarised by the Lorentz/Fitzgerald Contraction. Perhaps the effect of this Contraction is seen only by observers on the Earth. Perhaps observers in some other part of our Solar System or Universe experience different results. One day we might know.
There is much about the way the Universe operates which is inexplicable and I think, is likely to remain so. My personal conviction (qualified) is that we should be careful about applying explanations about the Universe that draw upon our experience of the laws of physics here on Earth.
The laws of physics are the same all over the universe, well except at the event horizon of a black hole where all the laws go out the window, if they weren’t we would not be here having this talk because it would never have formed in the first place. It’s been tested time and time again and always passes those tests, the Lorentz/Fitzgerald length contraction is something Einstein worked out in his theory of relativity dealing with objects travelling at the speed of light, the closer you get to 186.000 Miles per second the shorter that object will appear to an observer watching it go by, but if your in that object you will notice no change, at the speed of light the object will have no length but it will have infinite mass, and that is why a space ship can never go faster than light or even close to it because to get it at those speeds would require near infinite energy, there are people trying to work round this but no luck yet, so there:D
By: paul178 - 5th January 2014 at 22:33
I have no idea how old this planet is,6,000 years or add a few dozen noughts to that figure. My only comments are since man came along he seems to have made a pigs ear of it with his superior intellect. A big bang may have started it and a big bang by man may finish it!
By: Creaking Door - 5th January 2014 at 22:32
Bruggen’s unthinking ‘certainty’ is like yours unfounded…
I cannot speak for Bruggen 130 but I am not sure what you think I am ‘certain’ about; I am certainly not certain about the Big Bang theory but it seems to be generally accepted by ‘science’ as the best explanation for how our universe came to exist in its current form. Maybe in a few years a better theory will be suggested. That does not make the Big Bang theory ‘wrong’ or the new theory ‘right’; it just means there is a new theory that better explains the evidence we can measure.
What I am certain about is that the Earth is older than six thousand years!
Even if I was not certain about this (and it is only my opinion based on the evidence as I see it) I would think it much more likely that it is a lot older than six thousand years.
By: Bruggen 130 - 5th January 2014 at 21:53
So, they just happened to pick up a cosmic microwave?. and get a Nobel Prize, WOW, what will they get if they can ACTUALLY prove the BB theory?is factual, and undeniably a FACT, something that happened millions of yrs ago.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
It is a fact linc, it’s just your to blind or stupid to find out, I know which my monies going on, and it’s billions of years. I knew it would be hard work trying to enlighten people but some of you are just beyond help, must be your age eh
By: John Green - 5th January 2014 at 21:39
Re 128
CD
It’s not the ‘investigation’ that is ‘guesswork’ it is the result !
No, you are right, we shouldn’t stop trying. I am not certain that ‘we will never know’. I did write that PROBABLY we will never know.
Bruggen’s unthinking ‘certainty’ is like yours unfounded. If there is anything that is certain about the construction and operation of the Universe it is its uncertainty.
This uncertainty and attendamt contradictions, especially regarding measurement and observation, is perhaps best summarised by the Lorentz/Fitzgerald Contraction. Perhaps the effect of this Contraction is seen only by observers on the Earth. Perhaps observers in some other part of our Solar System or Universe experience different results. One day we might know.
There is much about the way the Universe operates which is inexplicable and I think, is likely to remain so. My personal conviction (qualified) is that we should be careful about applying explanations about the Universe that draw upon our experience of the laws of physics here on Earth.
By: Creaking Door - 5th January 2014 at 21:02
So, they just happened to pick up a cosmic microwave?. and get a Nobel Prize, WOW, what will they get if they can ACTUALLY prove the BB theory?is factual, and undeniably a FACT, something that happened millions of yrs ago.
I think you may misunderstand the way ‘science’ attempts to explain the universe. At no point is ‘science’ going to say that the ‘Big Bang’ theory is a ‘fact’; all anybody is ever going to say is that the theory best explains how the universe (in its current form) came into being until somebody comes up with something that the theory cannot explain…
…and then the theory is modified or a new theory developed.
By: Creaking Door - 5th January 2014 at 20:14
I, like you, or, a hundred others, could produce a thousand and one ideas that attempt to explain the origin of our universe. The only fact is, they will all be guesswork. They will be the product of creative and imaginative thinking laced with whatever little data we are able to collect and which is measurable and verifiable. Big Bang and Tiny Whimper fall into this category. One of these ideas could be correct. We do not know now and probably WILL NEVER KNOW…
Are you really prepared to dismiss the whole scientific effort to investigate the origin of the current universe as nothing more than ‘guesswork’?
If you are so certain that we will never know should we then stop trying?
There was a time, not so long ago, when manned flight was thought to be impossible. Not so many years before that the accepted wisdom was that the Sun orbited around the Earth and to suggest otherwise was heresy. A few millennia before that the people of the most advanced civilisation on Earth were worshipping the Sun as a god…
…maybe mankind should have stopped theorising back then?
Sign In
December 31, 2013 at 10:50 am