Define creationism
russell...@gmail.com
"creationism". It needn't be more than a few sentences.
I need responses from people across the spectrum, and I'd like to ask
that everyone give their own answer before looking at other replies.
After I get about 10-20 replies, I'll tell you if I won the argument.
John Harshman
It's hard to define, since it means so many different things to so many
different people. I would say that this definition would fit the
majority of the people who call themselved creationists:
the idea that a literal interpretation of Genesis is a guide to the
history of earth and life.
There are a few who call themselves creationists who merely subscribe to
the belief that God created the universe, though in ways that don't
contradict modern science. And you can get everything in between. These
days, even more confusingly, it's become fashionable (or tactically
useful) for some creationists (in the first sense) to deny being
creationists.
David Jensen
"russell...@gmail.com" <russell...@gmail.com> wrote in
<1125355405.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Creationism has a number of meanings, from the profoundly anti-science
"Genesis was absolutely, literally right and the universe was created
6,000 years ago," to the very science friendly "God created the universe
in the manner that we have discovered using science", and a myriad in
between. Around here it tends to be supporters of the anti-science Young
Earth, supposedly literalist interpretation, that is most commonly
referred to.
Rick Merrill
Steven J.
<russell...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125355405.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Please help me settle an argument. I need a concise definition of
> "creationism". It needn't be more than a few sentences.
>
The primary meaning of "creationism" is the belief that each human soul is
specially created during the development of the individual human, sometime
from conception to birth. The alternatives are transducianism, the belief
that the soul develops along with the body, and infusionism, the belief in a
pre-existing stock of souls that are placed in new bodies as they become
available.
Secondarily, "creationism" refers the belief that those aspects of modern
science that contradict the creationist's reading of Genesis are false.
Without further qualifications, "creationism" implies that the universe
originated in six 24-hour days, five to ten thousand years ago, and that all
"kinds" of animals and plants are separately created. Of course, there are
creationists who favor less literal interpretations of Genesis (including
some, like Hugh Ross, who call their interpretations "literal"); the Old
Earth Creationists for an ancient universe and Earth. "Progressive
Creationists" allow for a succession of creation events over geological
history; this may be identical to old-earth creationism or may even allow
for common descent, but with guided saltations rather than gradual evolution
with random mutations and purely natural selection.
Then there is the sense of "creationist" as anyone who affirms God as
Creator of the universe and life, whether as the Sustainer and
behind-the-scenes Guide of (created) natural processes (in this sense,
famously, Theodosius Dobzhansky called himself a "creationist"), or, in
contrast, anyone who holds that "purely naturalistic/materialistic
processes" cannot account for the fine-tuning of the universe, or the
complexity and diversity of life, without miracles.
Note that these secondary senses arose only after the advent of evolutionary
theories (e.g. not before the 19th century) The first grew out of the
insistence of theistic evolutionists that they did not deny the creedal
statement that God is "Creator of heaven and earth." The latter grew out
of the attempt of ID proponents to construct a "big tent" encompassing all
anti-evolutionists, and to demand .
Of course, there are analogous beliefs for nonChristian religions and
scriptures, and so one hears of "Islamic creationism" and "Hindu
creationism," which seek to force-fit science to the Qur'an or the Vedas,
respectively.
Let me suggest a graph on which various (Christian) creationisms can be
plotted.
Along the X-axis, one can plot, for lack of a better short label,
"literalism." At the left end are people who assume that the "natural
sense" of scripture supercedes or totally determines the interpretation of
empirical data; at the right end are people who interpret scripture as
symbolically as needed in order to accomodate the "natural sense" of
empircal evidence. Think of it as running from flat-earthers to
Dobzhansky's position.
The Y-axis is the centrality of the creation-evolution controversy to the
creationist's religious view. Presumably the bottom of the graph would be
those who never gave evolution any thought (e.g. most of the "great
creationist scientists" one finds on creationist lists), and nearby would be
a lot of "creationists in the pew" who hold look at a baby and say "this
can't be the result of chance," but don't much care whether the Earth was
created 6000 or 4.5 billion years ago or how (or whether) creationism is
supposed to explain the details of biology. At the top of the graph would
be people whose creationism (of whatever sort) is central to their faith and
practice, from Ken Ham to Michael Behe.
| GB KH HR MB KM?
|
| JF CC
|
|
|
|
|
|
| W?
|
GW
|_____________IN?_________________________________
GB = Gerardus Bouw, geocentric YEC
KH = Ken Ham, heliocentric YEC
HR = Hugh Ross, OEC
MB = Michael Behe, ID proponent
KM = Kenneth Miller, theistic evolutionist
JF = Jerry Falwell, minor public nuisance
CC = Chuck Colson, apparent OEC/IDer
W = George W. Bush
GW = http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will082905.asp
IN = Isaac Newton
Note that Newton is hard to place, because, as noted, he never had the
opportunity to take a position on "creationism" in any of the secondary
senses. But by the very nature of this category, the people who fall along
the bottom of the graph aren't much noted for their position on creation and
evolution.
>
> I need responses from people across the spectrum, and I'd like to ask
> that everyone give their own answer before looking at other replies.
>
> After I get about 10-20 replies, I'll tell you if I won the argument.
>
-- Steven J.
Stuart
russell...@gmail.com wrote:
> Please help me settle an argument. I need a concise definition of
> "creationism". It needn't be more than a few sentences.
Bullshit wrapped in outright lies, wrapped in still yet more bullshit.
Hope that helps.
Stuart
Raymond Griffith
russell...@gmail.com at russell...@gmail.com wrote on 8/29/05 6:43
PM:
Creationism is a variant form of fundamentalism which emphasizes the
importance of the origins stories of Genesis above all other Scripture.
Emphasis is placed upon a more-or-less "literal" interpretation of the text,
the deficiencies of science, and the infallibility/inerrancy of Scripture.
The usual insistence is that "the Bible means what it says", upon which the
Scripture is interpreted to mean whatever the expositor is saying. From
there, however, a myriad of interpretations erupt, some with more Scriptural
support than others and some attempts to integrate science into the
interpretation meeting with more "success" than others.
The basic framework, however, is the belief that science must not be guided
by the evidence, but that scientific theory must be built and physical
evidence must be viewed from the framework of "the revealed word of God."
Additional sub-theologies include the idea that God would not or could not
create a world in which macro-evolution would occur, that the physical world
is somehow corrupt and sinful, and that the creation of an infinitely wise
and omnipotent God must be incapable of generating any kind of order by way
of natural laws.
Creationism cuts across denominational boundaries. Baptist creationism will
emphasize salvation by grace, while SDA creationism will emphasize keeping
the sabbath. However, despite otherwise intense doctrinal barriers,
creationists will support each other against a common enemy of "evolution",
making creationism the great Ecumenical movement of Fundamentalism.
While "Creationism" usually refers to the Young Earth Creationism
sub-variant (which teaches that the earth is only 6000-10000 years old),
there are a wide variety of positions, including an Old Earth Creationism
which accepts the ancient age of the universe but postulates an entirely new
point-creation for each different species discovered. Indeed, there is even
a small group which argues for a small, geocentric universe (claiming a
grand copernican conspiracy to suppress the truth and damn the souls of
men).
This definition is, unfortunately, a long one due to the complex nature of
the phenomenon.
Regards,
Raymond E. Griffith
Exponent
is one that believes that a supernatural entity is the ultimate cause
of our present existence. An additional constraint could be added to
that, stating that there exists no other possible cause that could have
been then ultimate cause of our present existence, which is an
additional constraint that I assume the vast majority of creationists
would accept. Beyond that, as others have already said, opinions tend
to diverge.
loua...@yahoo.com
John Harshman wrote:
> These
> days, even more confusingly, it's become fashionable (or tactically
> useful) for some creationists (in the first sense) to deny being
> creationists.
Although they get very cranky if you characterize this ... tactical
omission of subjective data ... as "lying like f*ck." Especially when
it is.
Ray Martinez
Creationist theory predicts the claims and declarations found in
the Bible can be matched with objects in reality thus establishing
"word and thing = fact."
The Creationist theory can be tested scientifically, historically, and
archaeologically, that is claims of truth, when they are determined to
be what the Bible says can be verified via the three areas just
mentioned.
Creationist theory can be falsified by producing facts that falsify
claims of truth in the Bible, but that has never happened, thats why we
are Creationists - because of the evidence.
Ray Martinez
Bobby D. Bryant
> Please help me settle an argument. I need a concise definition of
> "creationism". It needn't be more than a few sentences.
IMO it's not really very well defined. At the very least, it must
cover a broad variety of beliefs.
My off-hand attempt at a definition is "denial of evolution, with acts
of some deity invoked in its place".
Notice that the "theistic evolutionists" (is that what they calll
themselves?) wouldn't be creationists under that definition.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Bobby D. Bryant
He didn't ask about "creationist theory", which doesn't exist.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
of creation
more precisely;
the study of the origin of something to the decisions at which the
likelyhood of the appearance of it was determined
and also including;
the investigation of identity issues of the owners to the decisions.
So as creationists, we may look to Michealangelo and his painting, and
search for the location of the decisions that made it come to be, most
probably in Michealangelo's head. But then we may further look at
identity-issues of his free will, as to what was in his heart which
made the decisions.
On the other hand we may also look to a plant, and trace back the
likelyhood of the plants appearing to various decision-events falling
in the world, and universe. Trace it far back to some decision-point at
which the plant-kind became a relatively certainty to appear within a
scope of years. And of course, generally the identity issues of the
owner of those decisions that fell at the start of the universe, which
influenced the way the universe turned out so tremendously, are
resolved as belonging purely to God.
I think you will find this historical view in terms of decisions, and
the identity of the owners to them, is basically in line with the
creationist mindset, and also contrasts much with the evolutionist
view, who only see things in terms of general laws, do not know of any
single decision-event in 15 bln years of history of the universe and
life, and also deny decisions in emotions as by evolutionary
psychology, and generally deny identity-issues for any decision-event
except it being owned by a human being, but would also tend to deny
free will of people altogether, or limit it to a tiny scope of
influence.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
Steven J.
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125376625.6...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Creationism in a general and literal sense means; the study of the act
> of creation
>
excludes most of the ways the term is actually used. In English, at least,
"creationism" refers to the position of Henry M. Morris, who asserted that
we *cannnot* study the "act of creation," becayse it happened in the
unobserved prehistoric past and involved causes and processes that no longer
operate in this universe. Furthermore, most of Morris's followers would
agree with the ID proponents who hold that not only can we not study the
methods of the Designer/Creator, but we cannot make valid inferences about
His motives, purposes, or design philosophy. In short, as the most
prominent proponents of creationism see it, there is no possibility of
studying the act of creation.
>
> more precisely;
> the study of the origin of something to the decisions at which the
> likelyhood of the appearance of it was determined
>
creationists, that is not possible. From an evolutionary standpoint,
another problem arises: evolution is extremely contingent. There is no
single point at which "the likelihood of the appearance" of something was
determined. At, e.g. the point at which hominins branched off from panins,
the likelihood of an erect-walking African ape was high; the likelihood that
_Homo sapiens_ as we know it would evolve was still low. Every hinge point
in evolution or history closes off some possibilities, and opens up a host
of others, of which only some will be made real -- and that is unlikely to
be predictable at the hinge point.
>
> and also including;
> the investigation of identity issues of the owners to the decisions.
>
the one hand, you have creationists (ranging from theistic evolutionists who
accept naturalistic evolution as God's method of creation, to geocentric
six-day recent creationists) who already believe they know the identity of
the Decision-Maker and Creator, and feel no need to investigate this. On
the other hand, you have ID proponents, who loudly insist that the
investigation of the identity of the Designer is beyond the scope of their
"theory" and their "research."
Indeed, without a theory of creation -- some account of the methods,
motives, and design philosophy of the supposed Creator -- one cannot decide
if the evidence supports one particular identity for the Creator over many
other possible identities, or an entirely unknown and unguessed-at Creator.
>
> So as creationists, we may look to Michealangelo and his painting, and
> search for the location of the decisions that made it come to be, most
> probably in Michealangelo's head. But then we may further look at
> identity-issues of his free will, as to what was in his heart which
> made the decisions.
>
> On the other hand we may also look to a plant, and trace back the
> likelyhood of the plants appearing to various decision-events falling
> in the world, and universe. Trace it far back to some decision-point at
> which the plant-kind became a relatively certainty to appear within a
> scope of years. And of course, generally the identity issues of the
> owner of those decisions that fell at the start of the universe, which
> influenced the way the universe turned out so tremendously, are
> resolved as belonging purely to God.
>
This depends on what you mean by "plant-kind." Photosynthesizing life-forms
(perhaps even photosynthesizing life-forms using chlorophyll) were probably
very probable by three and a half billion years ago. Modern angiosperms
were perhaps not "relatively certain" at the onset of the Mesozoic period in
which they evolved.
>
> I think you will find this historical view in terms of decisions, and
> the identity of the owners to them, is basically in line with the
> creationist mindset, and also contrasts much with the evolutionist
> view, who only see things in terms of general laws, do not know of any
> single decision-event in 15 bln years of history of the universe and
> life, and also deny decisions in emotions as by evolutionary
> psychology, and generally deny identity-issues for any decision-event
> except it being owned by a human being, but would also tend to deny
> free will of people altogether, or limit it to a tiny scope of
> influence.
>
I think you will find that evolutionists generally acknowledge decisions by
intentional agents (like human beings). They hold that science advanced
when it ceased to ascribe human motivations and decisions to inanimate
nature (e.g. explaining the acceleration of a falling rock by its joy at
approaching its proper resting place), but they do not generally argue that
it would further advance by ceasing to ascribe human motivations and
decisions to human beings. Rather, the evolutionary psychologists (whose
attempts in this regard by no means represent the views of all
evolutionists) try to explain *why* human beings have the motivations they
do, and tend to make some decisions in preference to others.
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nor Syamsu
>
-- Steven J.
Robert J. Kolker
All physical evidence points to a very old Earth, something of the order
of 4 billion years. The bible implies a young earth, where the age is
the order of 6 to 7 thousand years. The bible's implication is falsified
by physical fact, therefore the bible is factually false because it
implies a contradiction to tested reproducable empirical observaion,
measure and and experiment. When scripture clashes with the result of
reproducable physical measure it is wrong. Fact trumps Faith.
Literally speaking, the Bible is a Book of Tales and has no more factual
standing than -Lord of the Rings- or -The Silmarillion- by JRR Tolkien.
By the way, as creation tales go, -The Silmarillion- is better written
and more entertaining than scripture.
Bob Kolker
nando_r...@yahoo.com
sensible, concise and informative, as you might use the word for
yourself as a creationist?
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
Dogma Discharge
news:3nibh7F...@individual.net...
>
> Literally speaking, the Bible is a Book of Tales and has no more factual
> standing than -Lord of the Rings- or -The Silmarillion- by JRR Tolkien.
> By the way, as creation tales go, -The Silmarillion- is better written
> and more entertaining than scripture.
Agreed. I quite enjoyed The Silmarillion!
Mr. Kolker, the last time we *spoke* you gave the impression that you were
standing on the opposite side of the fence from me! But judging from your
response above you appear not to be bible basher.!!!!! I'm new here so its
sometimes difficult to judge where everyone stands in their views.
*confusing times*
--
Kind Regards
Cameron
shane
Good ole Ray, he just consigned to oblivion all those non-christians who
believe in creation by their particular deity or whatever. Talk about
tunnel vision.
But in fact, i agree with Rays definition, I think for a subset of
creationism its farily workable. Of course this leaves Ray in a dilemma,
as in agreeing with it, I have, IIRC, rendered it wrong, as it takes
disagreement by people like Ray thinks I am, to make it right.
--
shane
And the truth shall set you free.
Augray
wrote in news:<1125368316.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
> Creationism defined:
>
> Creationist theory predicts the claims and declarations found in
> the Bible can be matched with objects in reality thus establishing
> "word and thing = fact."
Don't you claim that the "days" in Genesis don't actually mean days, but
refer to some longer period of time? Aren't you an OEC?
> The Creationist theory can be tested scientifically, historically, and
> archaeologically, that is claims of truth, when they are determined to
> be what the Bible says can be verified via the three areas just
> mentioned.
>
> Creationist theory can be falsified by producing facts that falsify
> claims of truth in the Bible, but that has never happened, thats why we
> are Creationists - because of the evidence.
Some biblical claims have been falsified for a while.
> Ray Martinez
Matt Silberstein
"nando_r...@yahoo.com" <nando_r...@yahoo.com> in
<1125384951.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>Regardless, do you think my definition of the word creationism is
>sensible, concise and informative, as you might use the word for
>yourself as a creationist?
Your definition does not fit any use of the word that I have seen. It
does not fit the use now or that in the past. No one who calls
themselves a creationist that I know of uses your definition, no
published material on creationism uses that definition.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Agreed. I quite enjoyed The Silmarillion!
> Mr. Kolker, the last time we *spoke* you gave the impression that you were
> standing on the opposite side of the fence from me! But judging from your
> response above you appear not to be bible basher.!!!!! I'm new here so its
> sometimes difficult to judge where everyone stands in their views.
> *confusing times*
I don't recall the conversation, but I appreciate scriptures (the
Tanakh) as literature and poetry. It is a place to see where some of our
values come from. The Hebrews have a story to tell the rest of the world.
Bob Kolker
russell...@gmail.com
reveal why I wrote it. I had a disagreement with an Intelligent Design
proponent, which went as follows.
Evolution side: <<Is Intelligent Design "closet creationism"?
Without a doubt . . . There is nothing inherently deceptive or
dishonest in calling Dembski a creationist.>>
ID side: <<I won't debate you on this. You (and the multitude of others
who repeat this claim) are not dishonest or deceptive, but rather
misinformed and unable to think clearly on this issue. Creationism (in
common usage)has to do with literal 6-day interpretation of Genesis,
and since ID makes no reference to this, it doesn't make sense to call
it creationism.>>
I then replied: << Hugh Ross refers to himself as a creationist. Six
day is not required [as part of the definition]. >>
Then ID guy said: << While there is some truth to what you say, I think
you know that "creationism" is a label that normally is used to mean
"young earth creationism". I could provide numerous links to illustrate
this, but I think you know it already.
Do an experiment if you don't believe me. Ask 10 people on the street
what "creationists" believe. I bet you won't get one person that says
"someone who accepts the age of the universe as 13.8 billion years".
You'll get the young earth position. Heck, ask 100. Same result. >>
I suggested that "10 people on the street" don't know creationism from
a hole in the ground, but I would post it to talk.origins.
Based on my tally of this thread, ten people defined creationism and
none of the definitions demanded an old earth. I treat Robert J.
Kolker as a point against me; he took Ray Martinez's reference to the
Bible as a built-in requirement for a young earth.
So since I came out ahead by 10 to 1, I shall feel free to refer to
continue referring to Intelligent Design as "creationism".
Andrew Arensburger
> By the way, as creation tales go, -The Silmarillion- is better written
> and more entertaining than scripture.
Are you trying to dissuade me from reading the Bible? I knew a
lot of the begats were boring, to say nothing of the inventory
chapters, but I had no idea it was *that* bad.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
Makes more sense when you're tripping.
AC
So you're saying I shouldn't expect a sweet creamy milk chocolate center?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
nando_r...@yahoo.com
> On 29 Aug 2005 23:55:51 -0700, in talk.origins ,
> "nando_r...@yahoo.com" <nando_r...@yahoo.com> in
> <1125384951.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> >Regardless, do you think my definition of the word creationism is
> >sensible, concise and informative, as you might use the word for
> >yourself as a creationist?
>
> Your definition does not fit any use of the word that I have seen. It
> does not fit the use now or that in the past. No one who calls
> themselves a creationist that I know of uses your definition, no
> published material on creationism uses that definition.
Yeah whatever. That you don't agree with young earth creationism,
intelligent design and the like does not mean you can ignore creation
as a subject of study altogether, as the way things come to be.
Probably you would have a more anthropocentric definition of
creationism for your own use, in stead of the general one I offered,
such as creation only appling to human beings.
As before, the way as I set out is in line with the general creationist
mindset, be it Michealangelo's painting, or the creation of the plant
kind by God. Trace origin of something back to a decision, discuss
identity issues of the owner to that decision.
An earthquake happens, maybe God is angry at us?
That is the earthquake is not construed as an effect of a cause that
went before, but is decided to occur there and then, and after some
identity issues are discussed in terms of emotions.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
loua...@yahoo.com
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Never has even one Biblical claim been falsified - not a one.
>
> Ray Martinez
Ray, if you don't start grasping the fine distinction between "X does
not exist" and "I don't WANNA look at X, you can't MAKE me!!!!!" I'm
really worried about what will happen the next time you're trying to
cross a busy street and the "don't walk" sign doesn't suit you.
John Bode
russell...@gmail.com wrote:
> Please help me settle an argument. I need a concise definition of
> "creationism". It needn't be more than a few sentences.
>
> that everyone give their own answer before looking at other replies.
>
> After I get about 10-20 replies, I'll tell you if I won the argument.
I know I'm joining this party late, but...
IMO, the most general definition of a little-c creationist is "someone
who holds that a divine agent is *directly* responsible for the
existence of humanity in its current form." This, I think, covers
almost all flavors of creationism, from Christian YECs to Hindu
creationists.
I tend to reserve big-C Creationist for American Christian Young Earth
Creationists, simply because they're the ones making the most noise at
the moment.
John Bode
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>
> Literally speaking, the Bible is a Book of Tales and has no more factual
> standing than -Lord of the Rings- or -The Silmarillion- by JRR Tolkien.
> By the way, as creation tales go, -The Silmarillion- is better written
> and more entertaining than scripture.
>
The Silmarillion gives me a headache. And the Bible is not strictly
fiction; there are passages that refer to actual history buried among
all the laws, parables, geneologies, letters, stories, and
hallucinogenic rantings.
I have little doubt that Jesus was an actual historical figure who was
a bit of a heretic and was eventually crucified. I don't buy all the
mythology surrounding him (virgin birth, resurrection, God made flesh),
but that doesn't mean the whole story's fiction.
Robert Weldon
news:1125449961....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Augray wrote:
>> On 29 Aug 2005 19:18:36 -0700, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote in news:<1125368316.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> > Creationist theory can be falsified by producing facts that falsify
>> > claims of truth in the Bible, but that has never happened, thats why we
>> > are Creationists - because of the evidence.
>>
>> Some biblical claims have been falsified for a while.
>>
>>
>
> If that was true I would not be a theist.
>
> Never has even one Biblical claim been falsified - not a one.
>
> Ray Martinez
Bullshit, and you have been corrected on this many, many, times. I will
throw just one out. The biblical Noah worldwide flood did NOT happen. So
much for your statement.
Robert Weldon
Rick Merrill
RW, how big was "the world" at the time that the biblical flood occured?
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Likewise, your delusional belief, that being a Darwinist can correct
> anything to do with the Bible is sad, if not a psychosis.
The Bible is a book of tales, not a book of fact. It is not history,
although some historical events are mentioned and even described. It is
not a book on how the world is really constituted physically. The
ancients who wrote the Bible did not know how the world was constituted.
It has taken 2500 years of toil and wit to find out even a fraction of
how the world -really- is.
It is you who are delusional.
>
> The Great Flood is voluminously proven and the resistance of Darwinists
> to accept the facts proves what liars you all are when you claim to be
> loyal to evidence.
There was no great flood. There was never enough water on the surface of
the earth and in the atomosphere to rain down and cover the earth to the
depth of Mt. Everest plus fifteen cubits.
>
> You should refrain from feigning superiority, but that is the mark of
> the deluded: they think they are.
You should refrain from presenting your utter nonsense and superstition
as fact. It is attitudes like you exhibit that is causing religion to
lose out in the world.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>>
>
>
> RW, how big was "the world" at the time that the biblical flood occured?
An oblate spheroid approximately 8000 miles in diameter. The makeup and
size of the world has changed very little in six thousand years.
Bob Kolker
>
John Bode
> anything to do with the Bible is sad, if not a psychosis.
>
What? I think that sentence is missing a couple of words.
> The Great Flood is voluminously proven and the resistance of Darwinists
> to accept the facts proves what liars you all are when you claim to be
> loyal to evidence.
>
I'm interested in seeing some of this "voluminous" proof, because I
drive past a series of roadcuts through limestone hills every day that
just do not make sense in the context of a single, global flood. For
one thing, the layers do not uniformly increase or decrease in density
as one would expect in a single settling event, but instead you have
layers of low density sandwiched between layers of high density (as
evidenced by greater erosion of the lower density layers, leaving a
series of overhangs). There are sharp demarcations of color and
texture as well. This suggests to me that the layers were deposited in
a series of smaller events over a long period of time, not a single
event less than 10,000 years ago.
Similarly, the distribution of fossils throughout various strata simply
doesn't make sense in the context of a global flood. I've heard the
explanation that heavy animals sank to the bottom first while lighter
animals floated for a while, and that just doesn't work for a number of
reasons. For one thing, if that were true, we should see elephant
remains alongside similarly sized dinosaurs, or small dinosaur remains
alongside fossil pigs or horses. But we don't. *All* dinosaur remains
found to date, from the biggest sauropods to the smallest compys, occur
in lower strata than most mammalian remains.
And then you have cases of clearly terrestrial layers sandwiched
between clearly marine layers; that would be hard to accomplish in a
single flood event.
> You should refrain from feigning superiority, but that is the mark of
> the deluded: they think they are.
>
> Ray Martinez
shane
> Robert Weldon wrote:
>
> anything to do with the Bible is sad, if not a psychosis.
>
> to accept the facts proves what liars you all are when you claim to be
> loyal to evidence.
The volumes of evidence that Ray talks about is much the same as the
volumes of water it would take to cover the earth to a depth of some
metres over the top of the tallest mountain, i.e. non-existent. Note how
Ray is very quick to claim evidence but rather reluctant to post any of
it. He will probably come back with some lame thing about the Grand
Canyon, completely ignoring the impossibility of fast draining waters
cutting such a convoluted path through mud.
> You should refrain from feigning superiority, but that is the mark of
> the deluded: they think they are.
>
Thought you had us on that one didn't you Ray, but our irony meters are
made of sterner stuff than that.
> Ray Martinez
>
Shane
The truth will set you free.
Augray
wrote in news:<1125449961....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
>
> Augray wrote:
> > On 29 Aug 2005 19:18:36 -0700, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote in news:<1125368316.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
> >
> > > Creationism defined:
> > >
> > > Creationist theory predicts the claims and declarations found in
> > > the Bible can be matched with objects in reality thus establishing
> > > "word and thing = fact."
> >
> > Don't you claim that the "days" in Genesis don't actually mean days, but
> > refer to some longer period of time? Aren't you an OEC?
> >
>
> Yes, I am an OEC, and the "days" of Genesis could mean, EITHER: 24 hour
> periods, OR, 1000 year periods each.
>
> I or my sources have NEVER taken a position on the issue.
>
> Why ?
>
> Because there is too much quality contradictory evidence, and according
> to Dr. Scott: "Men with Ph.D.'s from Stanford do not open their mouth
> unless they know for sure and have to eat their words someday."
>
> Whether they are 24 hour or 1000 year durations, alongside
> uniformitarian lengths they are both extremely young.
>
> The Bible does not support a young Earth.
>
> PRIOR to the "days" of Genesis we have Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.
>
> The terminology of Genesis 1:2 strongly implies a vast amount of time
> described to be eons and eons between the two verses.
That's an unsupported claim.
> The same exact
> terminology is used by Jeremiah, which, among other reasons, gives
> scholars like Dr. Scott the basis to believe he wrote Deuteronomy.
So?
> The insistence of Bible enemies to accept the translation of 1:2 by the
> KJV translators is because they want the Bible to be seen as suporting
> a young Earth because they know it is old.
>
> Rightly interpreted Genesis 1:2 says:
>
> "The earth BECAME a waste and a desolation...."
And what translation uses this interpretation?
> Jeremiah 4 repeats the exact verbiage.
So? The verse in Jeremiah is obviously a vision a possible future.
> Genesis 1:28 has God telling Adam to REplenish the earth, as opposed to
> plenish which supports the rendering above.
And interesting interpretation, but hardly definitive.
> The point is that the earth has a long pre-human history hosting other
> intelligent beings as a meeting place. The fall of Lucifer and his
> crowd started the wasting process, and Adamkind was a REcreating
> process.
This is wishful thinking at best.
> YEC's maintain their position in order to oppose the groundless 4.5
> billion of ToE which is wholly invented by assumption.
The 4.5 billion year age of the Earth has nothing to do with the theory
of evolution.
> Most of you know what I think of Dr. Scott, here is his view on the age
> of the earth:
>
> "I believe the earth is of immense age....how old ?....nobody knows for
> sure....why ?....too much quality contradictory evidence....the point
> is God retains some secrets."
>
> Dr. Scott never immersed himself in the age of the earth debate because
> it is unresolvable.
At least not by use of biblical sources.
> > > The Creationist theory can be tested scientifically, historically, and
> > > archaeologically, that is claims of truth, when they are determined to
> > > be what the Bible says can be verified via the three areas just
> > > mentioned.
> > >
> > > Creationist theory can be falsified by producing facts that falsify
> > > claims of truth in the Bible, but that has never happened, thats why we
> > > are Creationists - because of the evidence.
> >
> > Some biblical claims have been falsified for a while.
> >
> >
>
> If that was true I would not be a theist.
>
> Never has even one Biblical claim been falsified - not a one.
Daniel states that the father of Belshazzar was Nebuchadnezzar, when in
fact *Nabonidus* was the father of Belshazzar. This is shown by
Babylonian documents.
> Ray Martinez