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: J Boyle - 3rd January 2014 at 13:28
Hot on the heels of the “God doesn’t exist” thread, here we have another thread whose sole reason for posting is to ridicule those who disagree with the author…and it quickly becomes another “let’s mock faith” thread.
Come on, if this thread were bashing any other group….women, gays, the handicapped, the French…it would have been locked and removed by now.
Moggy, you’re a moderator and should be above such juvenile hijinks. You have made your opinions on this topic known many times before. Really, much of the membership here is acting like a group of public school bullies who set the tone of what is cool and anything/anyone they don’t like is driven away.
Have you considered that stuff like this is why most senior members no longer post here?
By: charliehunt - 3rd January 2014 at 13:26
Not so, CD…
Global climate changes have been far more intense (12 to 20 times as intense in some cases) than the global warming of the past century, and they took place in as little as 20–100 years. Global warming of the past century (0.8° C) is virtually insignificant when compared to the magnitude of at least 10 global climate changes in the past 15,000 years. None of these sudden global climate changes could possibly have been caused by human CO2 input to the atmosphere because they all took place long before anthropogenic CO2 emissions began. The cause of the ten earlier ‘natural’ climate changes was most likely the same as the cause of global warming from 1977 to 1998.
Climatic fluctuations over the past several hundred years suggest ~30 year climatic cycles of global warming and cooling (Figure 3) on a generally rising trend from the Little Ice Age about 500 years ago.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articlePictures/globalcool3.jpg
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articlePictures/globalcool4.jpg
By: Creaking Door - 3rd January 2014 at 13:13
…the Earth has been thru many, many cycles of warming and cooling to an extent that if it was experienced to-day might cause alarm, panic and despondency on a world wide scale.
I don’t think anybody is disputing that but what should maybe cause concern is the rate of warming / cooling. In the past the rate-of-change was measured in millennia not decades!
This quite interestingly ties in with another subject raised in this thread: evolution. If the rate of temperature change is rapid the plant and animal life do not have a chance to evolve to cope with it and the result is mass extinctions; as shown by the fossil record (or put there by a mischievous deity to confuse us).
By: charliehunt - 3rd January 2014 at 13:02
But “Mother nature” is highly adaptable and has been adapting to human and natural events for millenia.
If anyone is concerned about population levels this man is worth an hour of your time….
By: trumper - 3rd January 2014 at 12:50
the earth may very well keep on surviving all that occurs on it, but the many billions of us that even in this era of scientific food growth still rely on the seasons to feed us may not, and there is something up with the weather that may knock us of our perch back to a manageable level.
Mother earth or nature is not responsible for looking after us,she is looking after herself ,we will just live and die around how successful she is.
All we do is abuse her if we take too much,too often .
By: sticky847 - 3rd January 2014 at 12:33
the earth may very well keep on surviving all that occurs on it, but the many billions of us that even in this era of scientific food growth still rely on the seasons to feed us may not, and there is something up with the weather that may knock us of our perch back to a manageable level.
By: John Green - 3rd January 2014 at 11:33
Re 77
Bruggen 130
You list a stream of authors and their works of fiction. All of these works are for the most part works of imagination, conjecture and supposition. Personally, I would not quote one sentence in support of any matters here under discussion. Rather than taking on other peoples ideas, and thus, possibly corrupting your own capacity for original thinking, confront the possibility that ultimately there are no answers partial or otherwise to the questions we continually ask:
How did the universe start?
How did we get here?
Why are we here?
What purpose is there for our existence?
Where are we going?
What is our destination – if any?
No one has ever been able to answer any of these questions and no one ever will.
The question of man made global warming/cooling versus that of natural cyclical effect will, because of the time required to observe, quantify and analyze any change, make it practically impossible to apportion blame. It has been said before and I repeat it here for you; the Earth has been thru many, many cycles of warming and cooling to an extent that if it was experienced to-day might cause alarm, panic and despondency on a world wide scale.
Yet, the Earth is still here, in reasonably good repair and in my estimation capable of absorbing and dealing with the worst that mankind can throw at it and especially if you compare that with all that Nature has thrown at it since the dawn of time.
By: charliehunt - 3rd January 2014 at 09:37
Which of course what we totally disagree about, as clear as the nose on your face but not mine, so little point in responding further.
I do indeed – a good 6/7 hours a night, thank you!
By: Bruggen 130 - 3rd January 2014 at 09:26
The posts you and I exchanged related to man destroying the earth by his actions – specifically the climate.
I too have read many of the books you list and do please quote my post where I came close to dismissing anything these eminent scientists have written. You and I have never debated them.
Oh and a Happy New Year to you too, Bruggen.
Well climate change is a man made problem , it’s as plain as the nose on your face we humans will just send it over the edge and you know what old bean it will be people like you and others who will be
the first to ask what the scientist are going to do about it, someone on here wondered how long it will take to heal itself, will it wont because it does not know and if it did it would not care.
BTW do you ever sleep.
By: charliehunt - 3rd January 2014 at 05:35
The posts you and I exchanged related to man destroying the earth by his actions – specifically the climate.
I too have read many of the books you list and do please quote my post where I came close to dismissing anything these eminent scientists have written. You and I have never debated them.
Oh and a Happy New Year to you too, Bruggen.
By: Bruggen 130 - 2nd January 2014 at 23:35
Bruggen – Tells me then, unless anyone else wants to hop on board.
Numerous papers on climatology and climate archaeology. I follow the climate site Watts up with That and have read An Appeal to Reason, The Chilling Stars and The Hockey Stick Illusion and others.
I would suggest that unless you can respond in kind with readings supporting your contention then the accusation of arrogance should be redirected through 180 degrees.
Well seeing that this thread is about the age of the Earth and where we come from, I have read “Big Bang” by Simon Singh, “Grand Design, A Brief History Of Time, The Universe In a Nutshell, Black Holes and Baby Universes By S Hawking, The Beginning By John Gribbin, Just Six Numbers by Martin Rees, Cosmic Coincidences By John Gribbin & Martin Rees, Parallel Worlds, Superstrings, by Michio Kaku any one will give you a good start in to understanding how the universe was born. The Origin of Species, Darwin, An Ancestors Tale, The Selfish Gene, The Greatest Show on Earth, By Richard Dawkins. And many others over the last 55 years.
All well thumbed, so now can you see why I have a problem with people that just dismiss all the above as just a theory or an opinion, but I will try to read those that you have mentioned, will you.
Happy New Year Charles.
By: charliehunt - 2nd January 2014 at 20:32
I have also followed the accepted ideology until I lost all confidence in it.
On reflection most us will tend to spend most of our time with our prejudices once we have come to a settled opinion on a matter.
Few will constantly remain open minded until the end of their days. In the manner of a couple of other threads here most of us are settled on our beliefs and I suggest that few atheists and perhaps agnostics continue to read the bible. As I doubt believers spend much time with antitheitical writing.
By: Moggy C - 2nd January 2014 at 20:09
I follow the climate site Watts up with That
Interesting how people choose only to garner their information from places that support their own viewpoint.
Moggy
By: charliehunt - 2nd January 2014 at 20:00
Bruggen – Tells me then, unless anyone else wants to hop on board.
Numerous papers on climatology and climate archaeology. I follow the climate site Watts up with That and have read An Appeal to Reason, The Chilling Stars and The Hockey Stick Illusion and others.
I would suggest that unless you can respond in kind with readings supporting your contention then the accusation of arrogance should be redirected through 180 degrees.
By: Lincoln 7 - 2nd January 2014 at 19:50
Re 69
I’ll lose all credibility with Jim.
Your on the slippery slope already John, just a slight nudge in the right direction……………..:rolleyes:
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: Bruggen 130 - 2nd January 2014 at 19:41
Your last sentence tells us all we need to know about your inability
“tells us” how arrogant to presume to speak for everybody, and I take that by your refusal to name any books you’ve read on the subject, Is because you havn’t, which leads me to believe your only knowledge on the topic are from bits in mags an newpapers that you have picked over the years, I asked you a question please answer it.
By: RpR - 2nd January 2014 at 19:26
It may well be Gary, that it may be an American “Intervention” in some conflict, that will trigger WW3, and cause our demise, unless of course some ALIEN intervention stops it……:rolleyes:
Jim.
Lincoln .7
Yes you are correct, God and angels coming to earth whether by hocus-pocus or in actual vehicles ARE ALIENS.
By: John Green - 2nd January 2014 at 19:06
Re 69
Well, there you go ! We weren’t that far apart after all. I hope this isn’t infectious; I’ll lose all credibility with Jim.
By: Sideslip - 2nd January 2014 at 18:55
Re 65
You know my reply. What’s yours? Do not write: “I’ll have a gin and tonic”.
John, you really seem quite a character. Life and soul of the party I bet!
My position? I fully accept the overwhelming evidence for evolution by natural selection, but have no idea how the original spark of life came about.
By: John Green - 2nd January 2014 at 18:36
Re 65
You know my reply. What’s yours? Do not write: “I’ll have a gin and tonic”.
Sign In
December 31, 2013 at 10:50 am