Home› A Moving Train

the science of creation

catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
edited April 2007 in A Moving Train
whilst we're on such a religious kick, here's a question to ponder.


does science contradict the Genesis account of creation?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Post edited by Unknown User on
«13

Comments

  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    Absolutely.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • Bu2Bu2 Posts: 1,693
    ...there was darkness.

    And then came light.

    And then came waters and lands and plants and animals.
    Feels Good Inc.
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    Bu2 wrote:
    ...there was darkness.

    And then came light.

    And then came waters and lands and plants and animals.

    I'm more inclined to believe there was no begining. But I will not make assumptions about the origins of reality.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • Galaxie2X4Galaxie2X4 Posts: 151
    catefrances wrote:
    whilst we're on such a religious kick, here's a question to ponder.


    does science contradict the Genesis account of creation?

    Yes.
    "My Cadillac's sittin in the back, it isn't me, I'm going home in my Galaxy"
    S. Hoon

    "My body's nobody's body but mine. You run your own body, let me run mine" Chicago '95

    Franken '08
  • Bu2Bu2 Posts: 1,693
    Darkness, then light.

    But what the fuck do I know? I'm only human.

    *shrugs*
    Feels Good Inc.
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    Bu2 wrote:
    Darkness, then light.

    But what the fuck do I know? I'm only human.

    *shrugs*

    I know but Big Bang was never concluded to be the 'begining' even if it is true. That's something Creationists have done.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • Bu2Bu2 Posts: 1,693
    is your beginning (or non-beginning, as it were)?

    And where in the hell is the link to gabbly???????
    Feels Good Inc.
  • chadwickchadwick up my ass Posts: 21,157
    no comment.
    for poetry through the ceiling. ISBN: 1 4241 8840 7

    "Hear me, my chiefs!
    I am tired; my heart is
    sick and sad. From where
    the sun stands I will fight
    no more forever."
    Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    Bu2 wrote:
    is your beginning (or non-beginning, as it were)?

    And where in the hell is the link to gabbly???????

    I don't have an answer for that. I actually consider it to be irrelevant.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    so when day is mentioned in the bible it is automatically assumed to be of the 24 hour variety?
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • sicnevolsicnevol Posts: 180
    Whats a Day to a Timeless god? So No not at all.
    That's two things we've got, Tape and Time.
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    sicnevol wrote:
    Whats a Day to a Timeless god? So No not at all.

    so if we do not assume a day in creation is 24 earth hours long. that means that God did not create the world in the 6 earth days as we see it. if this is so then it could be said that here we have science not acting in contradiction to the creation theory. because as we all know science disbelieves the 6 day theory. we simply do not know how long a day is.
    and if this is so, then how are we to view 'in the beginning'? and do we also assume that the 6 days of creation are consequential to 'the beginning'? and when exactly is this 'beginning'?
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • sicnevolsicnevol Posts: 180
    catefrances wrote:
    so if we do not assume a day in creation is 24 earth hours long. that means that God did not create the world in the 6 earth days as we see it. if this is so then it could be said that here we have science not acting in contradiction to the creation theory. because as we all know science disbelieves the 6 day theory. we simply do not know how long a day is.
    and if this is so, then how are we to view 'in the beginning'? and do we also assume that the 6 days of creation are consequential to 'the beginning'? and when exactly is this 'beginning'?
    Are you asking me?

    Well, if god is timeless and always was, there is no beginning. For something that is eternal there is no time. six "days" to a god, could be 600 Billion years to us. There is a theory called the clock maker theory....


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockmaker_hypothesis

    thats my thought on relgion. If there is a god, he doesn;t really care to much.
    That's two things we've got, Tape and Time.
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    sicnevol wrote:
    Are you asking me?

    Well, if god is timeless and always was, there is no beginning. For something that is eternal there is no time. six "days" to a god, could be 600 Billion years to us. There is a theory called the clock maker theory....


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockmaker_hypothesis

    thats my thought on relgion. If there is a god, he doesn;t really care to much.

    nope. not specifically. anyone with a brain and a thought will suffice. :)

    yep i'm familiar with the clockmaker theory. though quite honestly, if you made something as wonderous as the earth and all the rest, why oh why would you step aside and leave the children in charge? everyone knows what kids are like home alone without supervision. :D
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • ClimberInOzClimberInOz Posts: 216
    If you change the day length then maybe genisis does not contradict the age of the universe. However there are plenty of other parts of creation that contradict science, such as the order things arrived...

    Flying organisms appearing at the same time as marine organisms? The fossil record contradicts this.

    The formation of the sun and moon after the formation of the earth also contradicts the current model of how the solar system (and galaxies) formed.

    And there are plenty of others... So yes, the biblical account of creation is contradicted by scientific observation.
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    What a contradiction to have a faith in science, yet use that faith to denounce faith in a God. You people are humorous....but I feel sorry for you...
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • CollinCollin Posts: 4,931
    know1 wrote:
    What a contradiction to have a faith in science, yet use that faith to denounce faith in a God. You people are humorous....but I feel sorry for you...

    There's a difference in having faith in science and having faith in god, imo.
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    Collin wrote:
    There's a difference in having faith in science and having faith in god, imo.

    It's not much, if any, in my opinion. If you do not understand a scientific principle completely, then you have to have faith to believe it.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • pjfanatic4pjfanatic4 Posts: 127
    catefrances wrote:

    does science contradict the Genesis account of creation?

    Not in my opinion. I was taught not to take Genesis literally. As is the whole Bible. That is one of the differences between Fundamentalism and Catholicism.
  • pjfanatic4pjfanatic4 Posts: 127
    catefrances wrote:
    so when day is mentioned in the bible it is automatically assumed to be of the 24 hour variety?

    That's what a Fundamentalist would say.
  • CollinCollin Posts: 4,931
    know1 wrote:
    It's not much, if any, in my opinion. If you do not understand a scientific principle completely, then you have to have faith to believe it.

    You can study to understand the scientific principle completely.
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • ClimberInOzClimberInOz Posts: 216
    know1 wrote:
    What a contradiction to have a faith in science, yet use that faith to denounce faith in a God. You people are humorous....but I feel sorry for you...

    Thanks for your sympathy- I'll put it in the draw where I keep my grandma's dissapointment that I still haven't found god.

    Let me give you an example of the difference between faith in god and 'faith' in science. Imagine you are trying to explain why things fall to earth. You hear of this great idea that some form of force attracts objects toward the earth and that the strength of this pull is relative to the mass of the object involved. You decide to test that idea and conduct an experiment. The results hold true to the idea, giving you objetive evidence that the idea is correct.

    Then you hear of this even better idea, that takes the original idea and twists it a little to make it stronger. You hear of a prediction it makes about particular stars being visible in more then one location because of the effect of gravity on light. You get out your telescope and there it is - an Einstein cross. More evidence that the idea is a good one. And this process continues and continues and the idea gets stronger and stronger.

    Finally you hear of a supposed best idea ever that explains everything. You try to test it... but you can't. All you can do is take the word of others- but they haven't been able to test it either. There is a book, but the book makes no testable predictions, and is so vague that it could be interpreted in many different ways. The only way that you can possibly bellieve in this idea is to have absolute blind faith that it is correct.

    The scientific method alows for experimentation and observations that can be replicated with testable predictions. Any person in the world can make the same observations as the scientists involved. The only faith involved in science is the faith that the scientists have stuck to the scientific method- and even that is reinforced by a scientific community that is skeptical and looking for errors. If you don't stick to the scientific method your idea won't last long.

    Faith in god is blind.
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    know1 wrote:
    It's not much, if any, in my opinion. If you do not understand a scientific principle completely, then you have to have faith to believe it.

    not me. if i dont understand a scientific principle i dismiss it. though i am an atheist i do not take as gospel(pardon the pun)what scientists tell me. if it makes no sense to me and i continue in failing to grasp the concept then i don't automatically see it as a truth. when it comes to religion, it's the same thing. nothing a believer has ever said to me makes any difference. the more they talk to me the more i realise this God thing just isnt gonna happen for me. they actually make me less inclined to believe. i can not put my faith in something that makes zero sense to me.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    pjfanatic4 wrote:
    Not in my opinion. I was taught not to take Genesis literally. As is the whole Bible. That is one of the differences between Fundamentalism and Catholicism.

    Are you willing to interpret it in such a way that it's all metaphorical, including Jesus Christ. The Sun of God, who walks on water, i.e. light reflecting on water, who's Light shall be seen by all, who was born on Dec 25, to the backdrop of the Constellation Virgo?

    If it's not literal, then it's most likely best interpreted this way. Are you willing to do that?
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    This video covers a metaphorical interpretation of Jesus Christ
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=QQ-kvw1fYXs
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • deadnothingbetterdeadnothingbetter Posts: 2,202
    ClimberInOz wrote:
    Thanks for your sympathy- I'll put it in the draw where I keep my grandma's dissapointment that I still haven't found god.

    Let me give you an example of the difference between faith in god and 'faith' in science. Imagine you are trying to explain why things fall to earth. You hear of this great idea that some form of force attracts objects toward the earth and that the strength of this pull is relative to the mass of the object involved. You decide to test that idea and conduct an experiment. The results hold true to the idea, giving you objetive evidence that the idea is correct.

    Then you hear of this even better idea, that takes the original idea and twists it a little to make it stronger. You hear of a prediction it makes about particular stars being visible in more then one location because of the effect of gravity on light. You get out your telescope and there it is - an Einstein cross. More evidence that the idea is a good one. And this process continues and continues and the idea gets stronger and stronger.

    Finally you hear of a supposed best idea ever that explains everything. You try to test it... but you can't. All you can do is take the word of others- but they haven't been able to test it either. There is a book, but the book makes no testable predictions, and is so vague that it could be interpreted in many different ways. The only way that you can possibly bellieve in this idea is to have absolute blind faith that it is correct.

    The scientific method alows for experimentation and observations that can be replicated with testable predictions. Any person in the world can make the same observations as the scientists involved. The only faith involved in science is the faith that the scientists have stuck to the scientific method- and even that is reinforced by a scientific community that is skeptical and looking for errors. If you don't stick to the scientific method your idea won't last long.

    Faith in god is blind.
    what the hell does blind faith even mean?
    This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    deadnothingbetter wrote:
    what the hell does blind faith even mean?

    It's a redundancy, faith is blind.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • ClimberInOzClimberInOz Posts: 216
    deadnothingbetter wrote:
    what the hell does blind faith even mean?

    OK, so maybe it was a poor turn of phrase.

    Belief in god incorporates no observable evidence and/or testable predictions, so is based entirely on faith. How's that?
  • sicnevolsicnevol Posts: 180
    ClimberInOz wrote:
    OK, so maybe it was a poor turn of phrase.

    Belief in god incorporates no observable evidence and/or testable predictions, so is based entirely on faith. How's that?
    Also, I can go to College and get a degree in Physics, or Chemestry, or bioloogy. I can't go to College and get a degree in god.
    That's two things we've got, Tape and Time.
  • deadnothingbetterdeadnothingbetter Posts: 2,202
    ClimberInOz wrote:
    Belief in god incorporates no observable evidence and/or testable predictions, so is based entirely on faith. How's that?
    yes, that's sounds better. thank you.
    This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
Sign In or Register to comment.