What is "creationism" ?

[Catfish]

Hello,
i heard that there are a lot of people calling themselves creationists, who do not believe in evolution and the like (being a geologist i find this hard to understand), but what exactly do they believe ? Since it seems to be a religious thing - i do not want to start a war here, just curious ;)
Greetings,
Catfish

[TLAM Strike]

Basically they believe that Genesis chapter of the bible is true and should be taken literally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

[Skybird]

It's a state of mind evolution got done with a damn long time ago :damn: Someone just forgot to tell them.

[Torpedo Fodder]

Not all Creationists believe that Genesis should be taken literally: Some believe that the world and life on it evolved as described by science, and that God simply "flipped the first domino" so to speak (for the record I am not one of these people, being a athiest). The ones who think Genesis should be taken literally and that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old are known as Young Earth Creationists, or YECs. These are almost always bible-thumping Christian fundimentalists, who think the rest of the Bible should be taken literally as well.

[Camaero]

I would think it's hard for them to explain dinosaur bones right? Or do they have a theory on that?

[CCIP]

I would think it's hard for them to explain dinosaur bones right? Or do they have a theory on that?

They mostly do this by arguing with paleontologists on their age-analysis techniques, saying that all those bones are just a few thousand years old. :hmm:

[TLAM Strike]

I would think it's hard for them to explain dinosaur bones right? Or do they have a theory on that? They say some beasts mentioned in the bible are in fact dinosaurs.

[Iceman]

We..."Creationists" do believe in the literal translation of the Bible....but where does anyone get 10,000 yrs?...it is stated... it..the earth,...heaven, and all in it, and under it were made in 6 days....and the 7th God rested.Now here is where I know many Bible believeing people are getting confused and many evolutionists but I believe they are both right.If God moves at, at least the speed of light, then according to Einstein this is where time stands still, hence Eternity with God is possible dwelling in that light....so if ya think about it a "Day" to God in making the Heavens in one day...The Earth in another....etc etc...what is a million...a billion or whatever when "Time" has almost no meaning whatsoever?....It is said the beasts of the field and there kind etc etc all came about. For this to have taken Billions of yrs makes perfect sense and would prove Both...the natural evolution of the Earth and my belief is that when it was rdy on the 6th day..God made men...and then breathed a soul into him...and deposited him on the new creation...and in the first days or yrs or whatever...screwed up.So according to the Bible men lived into the 900's and since evil released into the world now will be good to make it to 60.I believe if no "Fall" occured there would have been no reason for the body to die.

Death is the thing that was not meant to be and is the last enemy...not Satan to be defeated according to Christian doctorine.

So some will say ...Iceman does not believe in what the Bible says. ..All made in 7 days...yes I do, but I ask you and any one else...What is a day to a being "God" who lives forever....maybe a billion yrs is only a breath of the lung.

This is why Evolutionsists keep looking to the "Big Bang"...the Big Bang was God saying let the waters divide the waters.

Genesis 1
[1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
[2] And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
[3] And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
[4] And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
[5] And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Guess it back to the ole "Interpretation" thing again...same with the scientists too lol. :88)

[Torpedo Fodder]

but where does anyone get 10,000 yrs?

Well, It's generally accepted that Jesus lived 2,000 years ago, and by going through the geneolegies given in several parts of the Bible (such as the ancestry of Noah in Genesis right back to Adam or the ancestry of Joseph given in Matthew), then the time of the Creation would work out to about 4,000 years before the time of Jesus or 6,000 years ago from today. For the record, over a third of the US population believes that the Earth is "only" this old.

[Iceman]

but where does anyone get 10,000 yrs?

Well, It's generally accepted that Jesus lived 2,000 years ago, and by going through the geneolegies given in several parts of the Bible (such as the ancestry of Noah in Genesis right back to Adam or the ancestry of Joseph given in Matthew), then the time of the Creation would work out to about 4,000 years before the time of Jesus or 6,000 years ago from today. For the record, over a third of the US population believes that the Earth is "only" this old.

I'm sorry ..yes I understand where they arrive at that conclusion...and point I make is the First chapter in Genesis ...a "Day" is what??? boils down what God considers a day I guess is what I meant.

My kid asks those questions too like...Who made God?

Only find out or understand when we cross over. :)

[The Avon Lady]

Some points of view from Judaism's side:

A Timeless Argument About Creation (http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/A_Timeless_Argument_about_Creation.asp).

Evolution: Rationality vs. Randomness (http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Evolution_Rationality_vs._Randomness.asp)

Age of the Universe (http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Age_of_the_Universe.asp).

Personally, I can take it either way. Here we are and that's what counts!

[joea]

My opinion, science explains "how" religion explains "why" and "who." ;)

I have to agree with Iceman, centuries ago, the Greek fathers of the Church like St. Basil also spoke of the 7 days as great ages. I do think it would be silly of God to create fossils and paly with light from distant galaxies to make it seem older than it is.

the links the aAvon Lady posted are very intertesting, will have to read the last one on the ag of the universe a couple of times seems heavy. :stare:

[Catfish]

Hello,
since english is not my mother tongue i probably write things a bit different from what i mean, so please bear with me.
Ok, so according to the Avon Lady the bible and Torah is used to explain what science found out, to justify the old testament is nevertheless right, and literally. You can certainly claim that even the bible has been written by man, but they will tell you it was dictated by god.
But this is the Judaism's way to explain (is it really?), probably not the creationist.

I just saw a film on that very theme, and the creationists were mentioned in claiming god created man and all animals at a time, including nowadays extinct species (as a paleontologist and geologist i have some doubts).
All "evidence" we find is put up as a test by god whether you believe in him or not - despite research and science. There are certainly different opinions among the creationist factions. In the film there were proud country singers telling the crowd why Darwin and evolution is wrong and intelligent "instant-design" from a higher will is right (i must say i doubt intelligent design when i look at most of my neighbours, even if i look at me - but then it is not so far developed either lol).

"For the record, over a third of the US population believes that the Earth is "only" this old." (comment: some 6000 years) :o
I once saw a film from the 50ies, i guess Spencer Tracy was a lawyer that had to defend a teacher talking about evolution to his scholars. The poor teacher had to face serious punishment in case of a condemnation. Please tell me that's not true today (?).
I knew that the pilgrims left England because of religious (puritan) beliefs, but is this view really widespread in the US today?? I mean the USA is Nr. 1 in Science and technology (generally spoken), you are extracting oil that began to form up in the Jurassic times - you use all kinds of stuff to determine age and evolution for developing all kinds of technology and weapons ... i'm speechless. One third, really.

For me there is no doubt that earth and universe is indeed much older than 10.000 years, and that evolution happens.
If it contradicts the bible, well one thing i say is you cannot take the bible literally. Maybe some people cannot understand ethical behaviour without the bible, ok.
I cannot prove the non-existence of god, and i cannot prove the existence or non-existence of flying spaghetti monsters. But i can try to accept the evidence of what natural science (or better natural philosophy) found out from the 17th century until today. Maybe you have to believe in something, even if it is science.

From one of A. lady's links relating to rationality against randomness:
"Gerald Schroeder earned his BSc, MSc and PhD at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology."
Really. I begin to doubt the MIT's reputation.

That we are actually here may also be an illusion - at least the universe as we see it may look much different than others see it (like Flying spaghetti monsters lol, i guess i'll become a member there.
But honestly, if creationism is allowed to be tought in school and in universities (against all evidence) the FSM theory also must be allowed (there's no evidence either), in so far
http://www.venganza.org/
is right ;)

Greetings,
Catfish

[kiwi_2005]

It doesn't hurt to take a hard look at yourself from time to time, and this should help get you started.. During a visit to the mental asylum, a visitor asked the Director what the criterion was which defined whether or not a patient should be institutionalized. "Well," said the Director, "we fill up a bathtub, then we offer a teaspoon, a teacup and a bucket to the patient and ask him or her to empty the bathtub." "Oh, I understand," said the visitor. "A normal person would use the bucket because it's bigger than the spoon or the teacup. "No," said the Director, "A normal person would pull the plug. Do you want a room with a view?"
:|\

[jumpy]

Imo, 'creationism' is (like all religious beliefs) tantermount to superstition.
Sadly, religion exists to 'fill the gaps' left by science and unfortunately whilst science keeps evolving, religion is firmly entrenched in the past (like those dinosaurs the happy-clappers maintain were made by god as fossils to be 'discovered' by man- "all part of God's rich tapestry" yeh, riiight) :doh:

I'm afraid that trying to mix science and creationism into some sort of amalgam just doesn't cut it for me.
Sure, religion had its uses; back when the state and the church were more or less the same thing it was good for keeping the unruly (but largely god-fearing) unwashed masses under control, a guide to tell uneduacted ppl how to behave and how to get along with eachother and be nice, if you will.
These days however, saying creationism is the real deal is like trying to prove that the world is flat- most sensible people will laugh at you, and quite rightly so.
I'm not denying the existance of something we as a species don't know about or understand ie. how the universe came to be etc. But I don't see this lack of knowlege as any kind of reason to declare that it must be because of 'GOD' or semolina or whatever, just because we don't yet know the whole truth. And if you look at it like that 'God' is just a euphamism for ignorance. :hmm:

[The Avon Lady]

Ok, so according to the Avon Lady the bible and Torah is used to explain what science found out, to justify the old testament is nevertheless right, and literally. You can certainly claim that even the bible has been written by man, but they will tell you it was dictated by god.
But this is the Judaism's way to explain (is it really?), probably not the creationist.
The Torah's goal is not to be a science book. The purpose of the writers of the articles I linked to is to show how the Torah's minimal and abscure discussion on creation does or does not contradict this or that theory.

By the way, get used to the word "theory."
I just saw a film on that very theme, and the creationists were mentioned in claiming god created man and all animals at a time, including nowadays extinct species (as a paleontologist and geologist i have some doubts).
That's very theoretical. Personally, I don't buy it. The articles I linked to don't either.
All "evidence" we find is put up as a test by god whether you believe in him or not - despite research and science. There are certainly different opinions among the creationist factions. In the film there were proud country singers telling the crowd why Darwin and evolution is wrong and intelligent "instant-design" from a higher will is right (i must say i doubt intelligent design when i look at most of my neighbours, even if i look at me - but then it is not so far developed either lol).
You underestimate mankind but justifiably so.
"For the record, over a third of the US population believes that the Earth is "only" this old." (comment: some 6000 years) :o
What if G-d created several worlds on this planet before the current one we live in and the prehistoric artifacts being found are the residue from those prior worlds? That would be found in the Zohar, the main source of Jewish Kabbalah teachings, coded over 2000 years ago and Madonna's favorite subject (please ignore the latter - talk about lack of intelligent design!).
I once saw a film from the 50ies, i guess Spencer Tracy was a lawyer that had to defend a teacher talking about evolution to his scholars. The poor teacher had to face serious punishment in case of a condemnation. Please tell me that's not true today (?).
That would have been "Inherit the Wind."

Today it's pretty much the opposite, as has been pointed out, I think, in the first linked article I mentioned.

Is that better?
I knew that the pilgrims left England because of religious (puritan) beliefs, but is this view really widespread in the US today?? I mean the USA is Nr. 1 in Science and technology (generally spoken), you are extracting oil that began to form up in the Jurassic times - you use all kinds of stuff to determine age and evolution for developing all kinds of technology and weapons ... i'm speechless. One third, really.
Indeed. But many Americans are ignorant in numerous subjects, this just being one of them.
For me there is no doubt that earth and universe is indeed much older than 10.000 years, and that evolution happens.
I personally agree with the former and not with the latter. But like I said, it's mostly academic.
If it contradicts the bible, well one thing i say is you cannot take the bible literally. Maybe some people cannot understand ethical behaviour without the bible, ok.
There's no definite contradiction here.
I cannot prove the non-existence of god, and i cannot prove the existence or non-existence of flying spaghetti monsters. But i can try to accept the evidence of what natural science (or better natural philosophy) found out from the 17th century until today. Maybe you have to believe in something, even if it is science.
Indeed, science has been called the religion of the agnostics.
From one of A. lady's links relating to rationality against randomness:
"Gerald Schroeder earned his BSc, MSc and PhD at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology."
Really. I begin to doubt the MIT's reputation.
Can you be more specific?

[Catfish]

Hello,
Kiwi, you are certainly right :lol: , i do not want to "explain the world" to others, nor do i think my view is the one and only (and maybe i'd used the bucket). And the subsim forum is maybe a strange place for this, but then it is the only forum where you can freely discuss such themes.

Again, i did not want to hurt anybody's feelings. This is only my point of view, and i will not look down upon anyone who has another belief. I do believe in god, i just have another view of things, blame it on the evolution classes during my studies ;) .

But it just is as someone wrote when he visited the shores of scotland, looking for fossils - being asked by a local fishermen what he had found, and how old it was he said something of 165 million years. The answer was quick: "So you do not believe in god". What i see now is this man obviously believed in creationism or at least at the world being quite young.

Reading Schroder's article from Avon lady's link as well as others i just find the way of thinking strange. You can see that the earth is such a perfect place for man, so it must have been made for him, together with all living and (some now dead) animals. In my opinion it is the other way round, man would not be man as we know it if the "outside world" or environment would have been different, or would have developed in a different way. It is a survival of the best adapted, or the fittest relating to their environment - and certainly not the strongest.

As far as we know the earth is 4.5 Billions of years old, the first lifeforms appeared 3.5 bill. years ago. When the "cambrian explosion" (sudden appearance of different organisms, or better preservable ones which's rests we can find today) happened, there were some general layout plans that developed or became extinct. After this there were no real new plans or so Schroeder writes.
Apart of being wrong he claims that this is meant by god's creation of all animals "at a moment". But he comfortably does not explain how dinosaurs lived with human beings at a time amongst other contradictions, like creationism wants it to be. So Schroeder or Judaism's theory is non-creationist, at least Schroeder admits some kind of evolution (?).

Again there seem to be a hundred theories about creation even within creationists? The question for creationists seem to be if the selection was done by some "intelligent" power, or better god.

I got the venganza link from a site Avon lady mentioned, and i just had a look at the "hate mail" , OMG :doh: Maybe we should quickly stop this thread.

Greetings,
Catfish

[porphy]

Hi

I'm not very fund of "link-wars" but to put something on the other end of the scale, concerning DR Gerald Schroeder's articles you can try this. ;)
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/schroeder.cfm

Personally I think the article about "The age of the universe" was a really weak piece. It's educating to read though, but not in the way the author wants to... Mr Schroeder writes early on in the article that
"I refuse to use modern Biblical commentary because it already knows modern science, and is always influenced by that knowledge. The trend becomes to bend the Bible to match the science." And then he goes on and on and finds how Torah and it's early commentators that did know no modern science fits very well (or does at least not contradict) part of todays cosmology...

Avon Lady, you say that "The Torah's goal is not to be a science book. The purpose of the writers of the articles I linked to is to show how the Torah's minimal and abscure discussion on creation does or does not contradict this or that theory.

By the way, get used to the word "theory."

But if the Torah contains no science or any theory worth its name, how could it possibly contradict or even not contradict a scientific theory? Perhaps it is a kind of poetic way of putting things, but than again, why drag in science and theory at all in this? I see no sign of theory whatsoever in the Torah references, so I agree with you that Torah has nothing to do with physics, cosmology or other branches of science. To bad that Dr Schroeder seems a bit confused on this part.

Cheers Porphy

[Iceman]

I like the spaghetti monster theory really. :up: LMAO..... :rotfl:

Flying spaghetti monster even lol....hehe

[TteFAboB]

It's a pitty the debate about evolution turned into a (political) hostile ground where science and religion loose space to offenses and aggressions, the theory about the flying spaghetti monster is plausible, but the intention was mockery from start, such hostility doesn't get my sympathy, I rather teach about Geen Aliens living under the ground of Mars, at least that would unite all of mankind to prepare for the Alien Invasion, without conflicting with the Grey Aliens from Moon proposal or the Blue Aliens from Uranus, as they all come down to the same point, we need a global anti-extra-terrestrial defense system.

[Catfish]

Hello,
i think it is not so hostile (yet). But this may change now :roll:
I did not immediately know exactly what creationism is, and how widespread it is even among educated people. I really thought this kind of thinking had become extinct, i did not connect this with creationism ... but to see Schroeder and similar articles, along with the current (also christian) trend to get religious influence back into politics ... i only begin to see that religious factions of all kinds seem to want to turn back time. What i learned back then was that the real development in society for democracy had been the separation of religion and politics after the dark middle ages with their decaying knowledge, their inquisition and torture.

The theory of the flying spaghetti monster is certainly not meant as an appreciated accepted theory. But the intention is not only mockery. The inventor of this "theory" is concerned about what is tought at schools, so if the theory of intelligent design can not be verified (even if Schroeder trys and fails, he is no creationist in a stricter sense), but IS nevertheless tought at school, they could as well teach the moon is made of green cheese, or man was made by a flying spaghetti monster. This theory (yes it is one, as well as creationism, determinism, calvinism and whatnot a theories, and nothing else) is being used by him to let the people make a decision of what should be tought at school, and what should remain open to personal belief - which is NOT WHAT SHOULD BE TOLD AT SCHOOL.
There has been a very thorough and slow development of seeing and perceiving things since some centuries, the "FSM-inventor" only sees the middle ages rise their ugly head again.

Children and young people are easily influenced and convinced, we should tell them of things we know, and can be verified, and let them decide what to believe then. What do you expect from a guy that went through an e.g. catholic education and never saw something else than monastery walls? He can not even be admired as a strong believer, he never even was confronted to test his view of things. So he would not even be able to defend his belief against better knowledge would he be tried. Same goes for other religions. Strange that people still are admired for being blind to reason. If a man tells me a black wall is white he must have profound insights i lack, what an unbelievable leader.

Some people living today with their minds being in the middle ages use all kind of technology, being invented by science, but still deny the mere existence of things they use themselves. The crap i heard from this iran president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who "has expressed doubt that the Holocaust occurred and suggested Israel be moved to Europe" comes right out of this thinking (seeing religious terrorists use computers and eMail to spread their stone-age terrorism is not only driving ME mad). This man is obviously proud to be an idiot, or he is just instrumentalizing archaic fears of his people to legitimize his position as a "president".

Begin to teach children what you can prove, and support ethical behaviour in a way like the common sense that was popular in the US during the 50ies. Teach religion as a theory, indicating there are other beliefs that have their reason of existence as well. If all peoples of the world would do this, and not teach hate and century-long tradition of "your grand-grand-grand father was tricked by his, so you go out and kill your neighbour NOW" stuff the world would sure be a better place. Learning from history and religion was not meant in a way to repeat MISTAKES again and again. :stare:
Sorry, i got carried away. :hmm: ;)

Greetings,
Catfish

[TLAM Strike]

...the theory about the flying spaghetti monster is plausible... Yes infact there maybe other hostile Italian foods in the universe…
http://img454.imageshack.us/img454/1116/20041007pizzathehut1xy.jpg

[TteFAboB]

Now don't mock Pizza the Hutt, he wasn't fully eaten as far as I'm aware and probably knows where we all live.

Catfish I understand and agree entirely with the author's motivation, I just don't like the style, that's all, personal preference, I find it confrontational instead of conciliatory, you don't have to explain to me about education and separation of religion and state, you know why? Because America isn't the only place where some people are willing to use anything for political gains.

In my country, a school was founded some months ago (with alot of "indirect" or "masked" public money) that is going to teach the poorest people, children who never saw a book in their life, that they are poor because of "capitalism" and that the only solution to solve all their problems, and of everybody else, is to destroy "capitalism", the first step is to invade private property and force its owner out, by pure force and superiority in numbers. Children are learning to sing songs like those that are taught in Cuban Schools, have you ever visited a Cuban school? Talk about justifying decay of knowledge, torture and inquisition of those who don't belong to your party.

Here, too, they want to use religion as a tool for their conquest, when asked what to do with Catholicism, the (informal) religious advisor of the President said: "It's simple, we just need to marry Mary Magdalen to Che Guevara". Brilliant!

I actually suffered from biased teachers through-out my education, Communism strongly appeals to the young, ignorant and blind, I was a prodigy, I was a proud communist at the age of 10, and dropped it by the age of 15 thanks to the rebel nature of teenagers, impressive isn't it, the job of the teachers that is. Our true revolutionary communists usually waited till their 20's, when they were at least able to physically fight the oppressor, and some of them lived with it for more than a decade or two, there is no greater achievement for a Communist, as an individual first, than to come to public and declare he was wrong for the past 40 years of his life, these have my admiration and respect, and to those who wish to take Communism all the way to the grave, I wish them a happy meeting with Che Guevara in Hell.

A very wise catholic man once said:
"The clouds created by god dissipate with time, but only the man can pull the blindfold off his eyes."

[Iceman]

What is intresting to me is the view point of the scientist.Science seems or at least likes to appear to be in control of itself and have a good handle on the way of things but I believe the truth of life is probaby not even close to what science or beliefs/religions can even comprehend.

Studing more on Einstein latley and his equation of E=MC2 makes me call to mind a quote from Jesus Christ in the "New Testament"...

Matthew 17
[20] And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

Ya think JC knew something about the power or energy contained in life and matter itself?I realize this parable is also meant to show if the faith in Jesus and God were pure enough or even as small as a seed ya could do anything but I also know Christs words had and have many many different meanings and messages.

I love the movie Contact and watched Carl Sagan for yrs growing up and watch all the Discovery programs I can....at the end of Contact Jodi Foster and her squeeze had a great common goal...The Search For Truth....what a great goal. :)

Peace Out Yall....Happy Holidays and o yea...Merry Christmas :)