Are you a Creationist?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:37:46 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Religion & Philosophy (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  Are you a Creationist?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Poll
Question: Creationism
#1
Yes, Young Earth
 
#2
Yes, Old Earth
 
#3
Theistic Evolutionist
 
#4
Of course not!
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 104

Author Topic: Are you a Creationist?  (Read 7165 times)
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,952
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: June 04, 2015, 08:56:54 PM »

'There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our thoughts.'--Bertrand Russell

I mean, the scientific consensus is that the Earth had a beginning, and the "Big Bang Theory" certainly suggests a beginning of sorts.  I happen to believe in a Creator God, as most members on this subforum do.  I think the quote is a bit disingenuous. 
Logged
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: June 05, 2015, 11:34:08 AM »

'There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our thoughts.'--Bertrand Russell

Wasn't that, like, literally before we discovered the Univerese DID have a beginning?...
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: June 08, 2015, 05:27:48 AM »

'There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our thoughts.'--Bertrand Russell

Wasn't that, like, literally before we discovered the Univerese DID have a beginning?...

Atheists are to history what Baptists are to biology dude.
Logged
The Dowager Mod
texasgurl
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,973
United States


Political Matrix
E: -9.48, S: -8.57

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: June 08, 2015, 11:08:23 AM »

'There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our thoughts.'--Bertrand Russell

Wasn't that, like, literally before we discovered the Univerese DID have a beginning?...

Atheists are to history what Baptists are to biology dude.
Good to see you are still an idiot.
Just because I am not a Christian, in no way means I am automatically an atheist.
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: June 08, 2015, 12:33:19 PM »

I'm not sure I could call myself either a creationist or evolutionist.  The best description I can think of is theistic evolutionist.
Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,952
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: June 08, 2015, 04:23:38 PM »

'There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our thoughts.'--Bertrand Russell

Wasn't that, like, literally before we discovered the Univerese DID have a beginning?...

Atheists are to history what Baptists are to biology dude.
Good to see you are still an idiot.
Just because I am not a Christian, in no way means I am automatically an atheist.

Quoting Bertrand Russell does lend the impression that you are though....
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: June 08, 2015, 04:43:54 PM »

'There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our thoughts.'--Bertrand Russell

Wasn't that, like, literally before we discovered the Univerese DID have a beginning?...

Atheists are to history what Baptists are to biology dude.
Good to see you are still an idiot.
Just because I am not a Christian, in no way means I am automatically an atheist.

Quoting Bertrand Russell does lend the impression that you are though....

Quotes Bertrand Russell
Is surprised when people think she shares his views Roll Eyes
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,835


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: June 08, 2015, 05:06:19 PM »

What is this shambles. Leave her alone.
Logged
The Dowager Mod
texasgurl
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,973
United States


Political Matrix
E: -9.48, S: -8.57

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: June 08, 2015, 05:45:22 PM »

'There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our thoughts.'--Bertrand Russell

I mean, the scientific consensus is that the Earth had a beginning, and the "Big Bang Theory" certainly suggests a beginning of sorts.  I happen to believe in a Creator God, as most members on this subforum do.  I think the quote is a bit disingenuous. 
My point was that not everyone believes in evolution or creationism, like 1.5 billion Hindus and Buddhists who don't necessarily think we should have to choose one or the other.
Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,952
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: June 08, 2015, 05:56:53 PM »

'There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our thoughts.'--Bertrand Russell

I mean, the scientific consensus is that the Earth had a beginning, and the "Big Bang Theory" certainly suggests a beginning of sorts.  I happen to believe in a Creator God, as most members on this subforum do.  I think the quote is a bit disingenuous. 
My point was that not everyone believes in evolution or creationism, like 1.5 billion Hindus and Buddhists who don't necessarily think we should have to choose one or the other.


My point is that science, which many secularists and anti-religious folks deify to an incredible degree, points to both the Earth and the universe having an actual beginning.  As far as what Buddhists and Hindus believe, those are faiths and have no bearing on your Russell quote. 
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,578
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: June 08, 2015, 10:28:33 PM »

I'm a theistic evolutionist
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,835


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: June 09, 2015, 06:03:02 AM »

'There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our thoughts.'--Bertrand Russell

I mean, the scientific consensus is that the Earth had a beginning, and the "Big Bang Theory" certainly suggests a beginning of sorts.  I happen to believe in a Creator God, as most members on this subforum do.  I think the quote is a bit disingenuous. 
My point was that not everyone believes in evolution or creationism, like 1.5 billion Hindus and Buddhists who don't necessarily think we should have to choose one or the other.


My point is that science, which many secularists and anti-religious folks deify to an incredible degree, points to both the Earth and the universe having an actual beginning.  As far as what Buddhists and Hindus believe, those are faiths and have no bearing on your Russell quote. 

Really? There’s recent research to suggest that the Big Bang did not begin with a singularity, and instead existed forever as a quantum potential before ‘collapsing’ into the Big Bang. And that’s only for this universe that we can observe. So as much as you wish to mock TexasGurl (whom I note you’ve ‘labelled’ as something without giving her the opportunity to tell you what she believes in) for quoting Bertrand Russell, in such a context Russell is not wrong in his statement. Why do you think Buddhism, making similar points to Russell in it's cosmological claims, is somehow different? Or Hinduism where the traditional Hindu cycle of the universe claims that the universe is actually a ‘multiverse’ with no origin and remains in flux. The description of the multiverse in the Rig Veda as being ‘so unlimitedly large, they move about like atoms in you’ even

All this ties in neatly with the tentative theory that there are multiple universes (and radiation patterns, currently being mapped gives weight to this) and that the ‘Big Bang’ was the beginning of ours, but not necessarily the beginning of others.

Each ‘exhalation’ creates a universe and that each universe lives for ‘100 Brahma years’ (some 311 trillion years) and then is annihilated. However there are an infinite number of ‘brahmas’. Even the age of this planet, 1 ‘day of Brahma’ is estimated at 4.32 billion years (it is actually 4.54) That was only understood in within our lifetimes.

It's a damned good creation story.
Logged
Türkisblau
H_Wallace
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,402
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: June 09, 2015, 07:30:38 AM »

Not a YECer lol (Catholic, normal)

"Theistic Evolutionist" I suppose.
Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,952
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: June 09, 2015, 07:32:07 AM »

'There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our thoughts.'--Bertrand Russell

I mean, the scientific consensus is that the Earth had a beginning, and the "Big Bang Theory" certainly suggests a beginning of sorts.  I happen to believe in a Creator God, as most members on this subforum do.  I think the quote is a bit disingenuous. 
My point was that not everyone believes in evolution or creationism, like 1.5 billion Hindus and Buddhists who don't necessarily think we should have to choose one or the other.


My point is that science, which many secularists and anti-religious folks deify to an incredible degree, points to both the Earth and the universe having an actual beginning.  As far as what Buddhists and Hindus believe, those are faiths and have no bearing on your Russell quote. 

Really? There’s recent research to suggest that the Big Bang did not begin with a singularity, and instead existed forever as a quantum potential before ‘collapsing’ into the Big Bang. And that’s only for this universe that we can observe. So as much as you wish to mock TexasGurl (whom I note you’ve ‘labelled’ as something without giving her the opportunity to tell you what she believes in) for quoting Bertrand Russell, in such a context Russell is not wrong in his statement. Why do you think Buddhism, making similar points to Russell in it's cosmological claims, is somehow different? Or Hinduism where the traditional Hindu cycle of the universe claims that the universe is actually a ‘multiverse’ with no origin and remains in flux. The description of the multiverse in the Rig Veda as being ‘so unlimitedly large, they move about like atoms in you’ even

All this ties in neatly with the tentative theory that there are multiple universes (and radiation patterns, currently being mapped gives weight to this) and that the ‘Big Bang’ was the beginning of ours, but not necessarily the beginning of others.

Each ‘exhalation’ creates a universe and that each universe lives for ‘100 Brahma years’ (some 311 trillion years) and then is annihilated. However there are an infinite number of ‘brahmas’. Even the age of this planet, 1 ‘day of Brahma’ is estimated at 4.32 billion years (it is actually 4.54) That was only understood in within our lifetimes.

It's a damned good creation story.
.

I apologize for the manner in which I posted but at the very least, the Earth had a beginning nearly 5 billion years ago, and this is not contested.  As for the Big Bang Theory, it still is the predominant view among cosmologists to my understanding.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,835


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: June 09, 2015, 10:47:02 AM »

I apologize for the manner in which I posted but at the very least, the Earth had a beginning nearly 5 billion years ago, and this is not contested.  As for the Big Bang Theory, it still is the predominant view among cosmologists to my understanding.

Of course that part is not contested. Nor is the Big Bang contested; the question is whether the Big Bang erupted from a singularity, or whether it has always existed as a quantum potential. We can only talk about our own universe, because we cannot (yet) determine if other universes exist and what the conditions are there. Note that we cannot talk about ‘before’ the Big Bang because ‘before’ is a time linked notion. Time is part of space time and that only came into existance during the Big Bang. You cannot do anything if there is no time in which to do it nor can you ‘do’ or be a thing that ‘does’ if you lack matter and energy. Both did not exist prior to the Big Bang. Now there are some theories that consider that prior to the Big Bang there was ‘time’ of sorts but there is no change as a result of time progressing as there is no matter or energy with which to initiate any changes. This is hypothesised simply because the laws of physics appear to be time immutable; they pay no attention to time.

Now if you want to pop god into that bit ‘before’ then it means the the universe held within it before it existed, before it emmited time, energy, mass etc a deity endowed with omnicience that was ‘separate’ before seperation and capable of ‘thinking’ and upon thinking ‘doing’ without matter or energy. It was capable of being something so omnicient (and apparently continues to be so, amused as it is by human affairs) even while using an unfathomably high use of energy (possibly more than the universe currently contains, violating the laws of conservation) and continues to do so.

Now I happen to think that what people try to do is ‘retrofit’ Christian teaching to fit into scientific understanding. And where god is found wanting, when we look for an explanation then god is endowed with qualities by his believers to always make sure he escapes both scrutiny and detection. Everything must be suspended to sustain that belief, or that ‘cause’

There are huge consequences for Christianity when you actually understand what evolution means;

If you’re looking for the metaphor underneath the metaphor isn’t that perhaps a tacit acknowledgement that Genesis isn’t actually telling us anything? Wink

The main thrust of my argument was more on the latter half of what I posted earlier. But I’ll respond to your point. With respect to Genesis as a handy metaphor, there has never been an ‘idyll’ in the evolutionary sense. Genesis specifically mentions an idyll in which essentially we were both protected and secondly had command of the land around us (with the insinuation that man has had access to farming and had domesticated animals from the get go; an easy mistake to make given that Genesis is a facsimile of other Sumerian creation myths) We have always struggled against nature. If there is any ‘idyll’ in which people want for nothing and indeed are bombarded with comforts that they don’t actually need relatively speaking, contemporary society is pretty close! Our intelligence has led us towards an idyll, not away from it. In terms of gaining intelligence/knowledge and losing our ignorance, again Genesis fails as a metaphor. If we are made in the ‘image of god’, then with evolution in mind, Neanderthals were made almost in the image of god. At what point in our evolution does god decide that we are close enough to his likeness to be special? To touch very briefly on the ‘just so story’ part of Genesis, it’s worth noting that Gods ‘punishment’ for the snake in removing it’s legs made it a more effective hunter Cheesy

To touch on something I’ve argued before, the Neanderthals ritualistically buried their dead. They buried them with flowers and trinkets; offerings and gifts to the dead. More than likely they were involved in ritualistic and spiritualistic behaviour. But they were not human. DNA evidence suggests that Neanderthals and Sapiens diverged from a common ancestor some 400,000 years ago. If both us and the Neanderthals ritualistically buried their dead which is suggestive of spirituality (and I say ‘suggestive of’ for the same reason that early Homo Sapiens show the same traits) then our common ancestor, Heidelbergensis that may date as far back as 1.3 million years may also have done the same. We have less physical specimens that survive in a social setting but recent findings from Spain suggest that they may have been the first ‘Homo’ to bury their dead. They also knew how to make and use rudimentary paints. So potentially the emergence of spiritual awareness and ritual predates mankind as we know it by as much as 1 million years.

There’s something deceitful in suggesting that humans, in their current iteration, are somehow ‘first and finest’. Indeed, the latest line of thinking on Neanderthals is that they displayed their intelligence so aptly they were perceived as potential mates and effectively diluted their own line. Given that both Sapiens and Neanderthals were successfully mitigating the difficulties caused by environmental changes, they came into increasing contact with each other. We know from cave paintings that they were capable of abstract thought. Their brains were bigger than ours with larger parts devoted to vision and simple function in turn producing different thought processes and perceptions of the world. Place them in today’s context, without the pressures of immediate survival and it’s feasible that their brains would make a better or different ‘sense’ of things than ours currently do.


The Christian understanding of the universe and our place in it is left wanting. It’s even a terrible metaphor for the universe and our place in it. I think that evolution and our understanding of the formation of the universe really does challenge the tenets of the faith. However I can see in eastern philosophies, in strands of Hinduism, Buddhism etc some more nuanced (and accurate) thought and I think that’s exactly where TexasGurl was coming from.


Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: June 09, 2015, 12:06:14 PM »

There is one thing I would dispute that has been evident in this thread. That is the assumption that creationism implies that the resulting creation must exhibit finite linear time. That's likely because the most vocal proponents of creationism in Western society use a particular interpretation of the Bible as the basis of their version of creation. It's not even the only literal interpretation. Arguably, the flood narrative is not that dissimilar from the Hopi narrative of successive worlds, save that we currently inhabit the Second World rather than the Fourth World.
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: June 16, 2015, 07:13:05 PM »

My views are somewhere in between an Old Earth Creationist and a theistic evolutionist, which means my denomination would probably want me burned at the stake.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: June 16, 2015, 10:38:13 PM »

My views are somewhere in between an Old Earth Creationist and a theistic evolutionist, which means my denomination would probably want me burned at the stake.
  At least they would hold that you'd eventually stop burning once nothing but ashes were left.
Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,952
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: June 17, 2015, 12:21:50 AM »

My views are somewhere in between an Old Earth Creationist and a theistic evolutionist, which means my denomination would probably want me burned at the stake.
Are Adventists generally YECers or day agers?
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: June 17, 2015, 12:24:28 AM »

This tree has living roots older that young earth creationists think anything can be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Tjikko
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: June 17, 2015, 06:49:52 PM »

My views are somewhere in between an Old Earth Creationist and a theistic evolutionist, which means my denomination would probably want me burned at the stake.
Are Adventists generally YECers or day agers?
Most Adventists, at least the conservative ones, are Young Earth Creationists and insist on a literal six-day creation.  One of our Sabbath school quarterlies about two years ago was adamant on a literal reading of Genesis 1 and that the biblical account excludes theistic evolution.  Some church leaders have even gone so far as to ban supporters of theistic evolution from teaching in SDA schools.  I don't understand any of that, especially because those same Adventists also believe in the day-year principle (where a "day" in prophecy represents a year of real time.)  I also find it strange because the believe that Scripture should take precedent over church tradition on issues such as the Sabbath (something I agree with), but stubbornly cling to church tradition when it comes to the creation account.  I have never found a single passage in the Bible that says how old the Earth is, nor have I seen anything that says whether the "days" of Genesis were literal.  In fact, I read once that the Hebrew word yom, which appears in the chapter and is traditionally rendered as "day," can also mean "age" or "time."  I'm no biblical scholar, so I can't comment on it, but if that's true, then our understanding of creation could use a radical overhaul.

My views are somewhere in between an Old Earth Creationist and a theistic evolutionist, which means my denomination would probably want me burned at the stake.
  At least they would hold that you'd eventually stop burning once nothing but ashes were left.
Touché.
Logged
twistory123
Rookie
**
Posts: 43
Peru


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: August 11, 2015, 06:45:26 PM »

no
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: August 11, 2015, 08:46:48 PM »

No, religion is bullsh!t, etc, etc
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: August 12, 2015, 02:28:45 PM »

Theistic evolutionist I guess, though I never understood why so many secular people seem to be obsessed with this topic (and specifically with people who believe in creationism), since it can't really bother me.
Logged
Thunderbird is the word
Zen Lunatic
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,021


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: August 16, 2015, 12:39:31 AM »

No of course not (Agnostic, normal)
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.07 seconds with 14 queries.