Thought about creation

[metro]

I recently heard a thought about creation. Most people (at least the ones who believe in Creation or intelligent design) believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans. I think most would agree that asked the question, how old were Adam & Eve when they were created, most would say 20-30ish. Or basically mature enough to reproduce, not created as an infant left to fend for themselves. So with this said, that means they would have been created "aged" or "matured". Many also believe that the earth is millions of years old, etc. etc.. Given that theory, what's to say God couldn't have created an "aged" earth from beginning? Just an interesting observation and discussion I had with someone recently. Thought it was food for thought.

[Midtowner]

Yeah, he was trying to fool us.

The more and more you think about it, the more and more ridiculous that idea is. I guess if believing in magic is what works for you, then that works for you.

[kevinpate]

Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe.
Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat,
and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet.
Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.

- K
>8^)

[namellac]

NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | PBS

This was one of the best NOVA shows I've ever seen. Actually shows the manuscripts of the "ID Textbooks" where "Creationism" is re-labeled as "Intelligent Design". Exact same text, just re-worded.

[PennyQuilts]

There are a number of christian beliefs that believe that Eve was actually Adam's second wife - the first was Lilith but she was pretty mouthy.

A lot of people who buy into intelligent design do NOT believe the story of Adam and Eve. They aren't bound by biblical stories, rather, they believe that the world or universe was created by intelligent design which may have absolutely nothing to do with christianity or any other recognized religion.

[MadMonk]

Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe.
Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat,
and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet.
Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.

- K
>8^)

+1 rep for a great movie quote.

I can't remember if I saw this hear or elsewhere, but it's the perfect spot to post it:

"Lord, I have a problem."
"What's the problem, Adam?", God replies.
"Lord, I know you created me and have provided for me and surrounded me with this beautiful garden and all of these wonderful animals, but I'm just not happy"
"Why is that, Adam?", comes the reply from the heavens.
"Lord, I know you created this place for me, with all this lovely food and all of the beautiful animals, but I am lonely."
"Well Adam, in that case I have the perfect solution. I shall create a 'woman' for you."
"What's a 'woman', Lord?"
"This 'woman' will be the most intelligent, sensitive, caring, and beautiful creature I have ever created. She will be so intelligent that she can figure out what you want before you want it. She will be so sensitive and caring that she will know your every mood and how to make you happy. Her beauty will rival that of the heavens and earth. She will unquestioningly care for your every need and desire. She will be the perfect companion for you.", replies the heavenly voice.
"Sounds great."
"She will be, but this is going to cost you, Adam."
"How much will this 'woman' cost me Lord?", Adam replies.
"She'll cost you your right arm, your right leg, an eye, an ear, and your left testicle."
Adam ponders this for some time, with a look of deep thought and concern on his face. Finally Adam says to God:
"Ehhh, what can I get for a rib?"

[namellac]

I'll have to find it, but there is a version of "ID" that actually has Evolution as part of its methodology.

NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | The Judge Speaks (Transcript) | PBS
Evolutionary theory is not antithetical to religion

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of intelligent design make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.


To me, the Bible is the "Why" part. Science is the "How".

[USG '60]

There are a number of christian beliefs that believe that Eve was actually Adam's second wife - the first was Lilith but she was pretty mouthy.

A lot of people who buy into intelligent design do NOT believe the story of Adam and Eve. They aren't bound by biblical stories, rather, they believe that the world or universe was created by intelligent design which may have absolutely nothing to do with christianity or any other recognized religion.

Do we have any idea what percentage of adherents to ID are complete non-Christians?

[PennyQuilts]

Do we have any idea what percentage of adherents to ID are complete non-Christians?

No - but does it matter?

I just kind of get aggravated when people assume I have particular religious beliefs based on something that is not necessarily related. If someone learns I am pro life they think they already know everything about my spriitual life and frequently have a pretty arrogant, condescending attitude about it.

[nik4411]

Interesting thought metro.

My question is, where do dinosaurs come into play? I have never read much of the bible, but i have always wondered what it says about them, if we assume they lived millions and millions of years ago.

[namellac]

Interesting thought metro.

My question is, where do dinosaurs come into play? I have never read much of the bible, but i have always wondered what it says about them, if we assume they lived millions and millions of years ago.

Probably because the bible is a history of a people, and dinosaurs predate that history.

[willy_p19]

I recently heard a thought about creation. Most people (at least the ones who believe in Creation or intelligent design) believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans. I think most would agree that asked the question, how old were Adam & Eve when they were created, most would say 20-30ish. Or basically mature enough to reproduce, not created as an infant left to fend for themselves. So with this said, that means they would have been created "aged" or "matured". Many also believe that the earth is millions of years old, etc. etc.. Given that theory, what's to say God couldn't have created an "aged" earth from beginning? Just an interesting observation and discussion I had with someone recently. Thought it was food for thought.

The concept of Yahweh creating the universe with the appearance of age cannot preclude the concept of creation beginning at the exact moment you began reading my response where the entire universe, including your memories of life experiences and even this topic to which I'm replying, was created in situ and is merely seconds old with only the appearance of having existed for minutes to billions of years.

Of course, this begs the question of how a creator that can be so deceptive as to create illusions of supernovae from billions of light years away that never really happened, volcanic mountains that were never really volcanoes in the first place, canyons that never actually experienced erosion, evolutionary traits that have never actually evolved, etc. can also be viewed as perfect, honest, and trustworthy thus worthy of being called God.

[PennyQuilts]

I've personally not read anything defending the notion that god created the world but made it appear aged for some reason. What are the theories as to why god would do such a thing?

[kevinpate]

dinosaurs simply don't come into play. houses were too small, so they played outside.
.oO(thought everyone knew that)Oo.

[Prunepicker]

Interesting thought metro.

My question is, where do dinosaurs come into play? I have never read much
of the bible, but i have always wondered what it says about them, if we
assume they lived millions and millions of years ago.

In Job 40 & 41 the Leviathan and Behemoth are mentioned. They're both
described as large creature. Dinosaurs? Don't know.

[Jon27]

What are everyone's thoughts on the afterlife?

[Prunepicker]

What are everyone's thoughts on the afterlife?

I believe in the afterlife and that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. No
one comes to the Father except through him. John 14:6

Maybe we should start another thread.

[Bunty]

What are everyone's thoughts on the afterlife?

One has to have believe in their afterlife if they believe in Jesus Christ even though the Bible clearly states that the dead know nothing.

[onthestrip]

What are everyone's thoughts on the afterlife?

Just a guess (obviously) but I have the idea that after I die it will be similar to how it was before I was born.

[Karried]

Has anyone else seen Religulous... pretty much sums this discussion up.

This movie is really funny but I'll bet Christians won't go see it.

[HSC-Sooner]

I think people are mistaken when they think of evolutionary theory and use the common definition of theory in that sense. When you lose your car keys, you can deduce the "I probably left it in my coat pocket" theory.

When scientists put forward a theory, its a completely different meaning. Theory in this case means an explanation of observations through experimentation and analysis. Theory in science means that the explanation is well supported by lots of evidence.

It's like this: gravity is a fact. When you drop a dish, it falls. So we have the law of gravity. That objects are attracted to each other and the bigger the object, the bigger the attraction. There's also a theory of gravity. So far, its the best that scientists have to describe the phenomena of falling objects. We don't know why gravity occurs or if there's an exchange of 'gravitrons' (similar to photons for light) in this process. So researchers are studying this through math, observations, and experimentation.

You can apply the same sense to evolution. You can look at human DNA, primate DNA, cat DNA, and bacterial DNA and see that there are some shared, conserved genes. We see it and we also see a 'scale' of similarity from organisms to organisms. We can look at wolf DNA and dog DNA and see they share a lot of similarity. We can look at primate DNA and human DNA and see a lot of similarity. We can look at human DNA and plant DNA and see there's some shared sequences but also lots of differences. We can place these differences and classify organisms based on how much similarity they share, thus a phylogenetic tree. That's the fact part.

The best theory that scientists have come up with is the theory of evolution through natural selection. Some genes survive and gets passed on to later generations. So obviously, these later generations will share similar sequences with its ancestor. Multiply this with multiple generations and you're bound to get differences, especially if one group is separated from another (whether it be by islands, mountains, etc.). We observe this in bacteria through antibiotic resistance. Although it's 'micro' evolution, it is not hard to imagine this on a grander scale. I hope this explanation is clear.

[Prunepicker]

I think people are mistaken when they think of evolutionary theory...

This is an old explanation that doesn't prove evolution by any stretch. I'm a
science teacher and an optical physicist. In all my years there hasn't
been any rock solid evidence of evolution. Many scientists, who hate the
idea of intelligent design or creation, simply refuse to accept the
alternative to evolution, which has more evidence for than against.

Evolutionists have not, and I dare say, cannot, produce one item of
evidence through the fossil record. Not one bone or fossil shows a
connection between one species to another. There is nothing to show
from where the cow came, except through wishful thinking. The most
troubling theory of evolution to evolutionist is the absolute fact that there
is nothing linking man to apes.

Radiometric dating, which can date something as recent as one day old one
day and 100,000 years the next is also troubling. One can't help but think
that if the so-called evolution of man over the past 12,000 years was true
that every anthropological dig on earth would be producing fossil after fossil
showing the link between man and ape. It hasn't happened and it's not
likely to ever happen. Darwin also said this.

Most evolutionists are using the same "facts" and methods as they did to
prove the existence of Nebraska man.

[HSC-Sooner]

The evidence I'm citing has nothing to do with radiometric dating. I'm using genomic data. Also, fossilization is a complex process. To preserve bones or outlines of soft tissue, the organism must have been buried rapidly in a low oxygen environment. You have to account for scavengers, earth movement, and decomposition. Not all dead organisms fossilize. You can't go to a fossil dig and magically find everything that once lived there. It's true that paleontologists have never found every single transition fossil but there are still plenty of fossils to examine and observe the variations over time.

You only need some key evidence in convicting a murderer in a crime scene. Jurors don't throw away palm prints or a bloody knife because the prosecution didn't have access to every single video of the crime.

Again, there's a theory of evolution through natural selection (which is so far, the best theory to explain what we observe). There are also the facts for the case of evolution through genomic sequences. You look at primate DNA and human DNA and you see a 99% similarity. How is that not a link? You can examine other organisms in comparison to human DNA and you will see different degrees of similarity. You can plot this and map this out to a phylogenetic tree.

If you want fossil link to humans, look at fossils for Homo erectus, Australopithecus species, and Homo heidelbergensis. Based on the fossil morphology, you can say they're related to humans. I'm not saying they're direct ancestors to humans because that's a false view of evolution. People believe that evolution is just a direct lineage when in reality, it's a multitude of branches stemming off of a shared common ancestor. Humans and modern primates stem off a shared ancestor, but to say chimpanzees are ancestors of humans is false. Think of a Y. The branches are similar and they share a common stem. Genomic data really does show similarities and it is hard to ignore.

If scientists 'hate' facts that are against evolution, then this is the biggest conspiracy in the world. It's delusional to believe that.

[Luke]

Even Richard Dawkins, God of modern day Atheism and Apostle of the Irreligious said Intelligent Design could work, actually...



For all you "open-minded" folks, "Expelled" might be a good documentary to watch.

[Mr. T in OKC]

Was anyone offended by this?:

http://www.newsok.com/oklahoma-lawma...rticle/3351041

I was. I thought it only reinfoced the assumption that most Okies are undereducated. So much for Todd Tomsen's belief in seperation of church and state. I also wonder if Rep. Tomsen is opposed to minority students attending the University of Oklahoma since most people in Oklahoma are white.