Evidence for the Creationist Model

[n4h1z]

Peace to all and hi 123...

I can understand your concern, I have touched on it elsewhere a number of times: this, specifically, is a religious argument. Both sides feel threatened, both sides feel a threat to their respective political constituencies, and both sides are not above using...ummmm...artful ways and means of achieving their ends. Both sides it seems to me are at ease in contorting the facts to fit their dogma and doctrine, while heatedly pointing fingers at the other and accusing of deceptive tactics. There is a lot, a whole lot, of "pot calling the kettle black" going on between Christianity specifically and evolutionary biology specifically.
No doubt a lot dates back to the Higher Critical movement, which predates Darwin by what?, about a hundred years or so. It is a movement that seems to have as its motivation the rationalization of, and global indoctrination of atheism. To a large extent it has been successful. Somehow that movement settled into science and began an outright attack on religion in general and Christianity specifically, that settled in Darwinian evolution where it remains most deeply entrenched. In Europe, a blind eye may have been turned towards these events, the atheists even gaining a degree of sympathy. But in the heartland of America, such a direct challenge to the faith and sensibilities of the masses was not accepted lightly. A gauntlet was thrown down, and the battles are still waged to this day.
This is not about whether or not God is behind any of this. This is about political sway over the masses. Just as religious war has been throughout history. This is about whose God is going to win.

This finger pointing and "pot calling the kettle black" can be seen in almost every discussion i think. coz everybody is trying to avoid defeat...but not all. Some are very sincere in their dialogue coz their main gaol is to seek the truth, the right answer.... not just for the sake of arguing and defending dogmas and doctrine.
I think TE is doing the right thing by creating this thread. Although the subject is still on the same old topic, but i think there is a need for it as we are all here to discuss, share views and searching for the right answer, aren't we. So let's do it in the artful way, the kindest and sincerest we can be.
I also hope that this would be a lively thread. But no doubt, I predict, circumstances will happen sometimes.
I'd like to post some views of mine on evidence of creationism but it's almost luch time...maybe later.

Peace

[Tao_Equus]

Hi Juantoo

This is not about whether or not God is behind any of this. This is about political sway over the masses. Just as religious war has been throughout history. This is about whose God is going to win

.


I must say I have to disagree with that analysis. I see it much more as a search for truth and the evidence to support it. At least for the appologist for the sciences. As for being doctrinal and dogmatic, well a group can be forced into appearing to be so when under constant pressure to correct erronously presented arguments, without truly being so. I think this is the case with the vast majority of supporters of the sciences, most of whom have a highly developed spirituality but also the capacity, indeed desire, to learn more. Those that become entrenched and attempt to defend an idea in the face of substantial contrary evidence quickly cease to be regarded as credible.
You are correct to say from the scientific perspective it is not about whether God is behind all this. Its about how it works. The majority of scientists have some kind of religeous faith and do not question God but seek to know in ever greater detail the beauty and intracacy of the 'devine work'. But they do kind of develop a grudge when they see their own ideas and hard work distorted and twisted to support the unsupportable. As yet on this thread there has not been a single effort to support Creationism yet there is a never ending stream of twisted logic presented by creationists trying to debunk science on all the other related threads. Creationists have no moral authority to attack the 'ideas' (not hard facts), of the studious people who, with an open heart and mind, search for meaning in the labyrinth of complexity around us. At least not without presenting a credible alternative. This constant effort to keep the honest enquirer on the back foot is pure diversion, nothing more.

The Higher Critical Movement as you describe it I have never come across. The only group I know of that name are a Christian study group based at Cambridge University in England. Do you have a link or more info on the group to which you refer?


Kind Regards

TE

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by n4h1z

Peace to all and hi 123...



This finger pointing and "pot calling the kettle black" can be seen in almost every discussion i think. coz everybody is trying to avoid defeat...but not all. Some are very sincere in their dialogue coz their main gaol is to seek the truth, the right answer.... not just for the sake of arguing and defending dogmas and doctrine.
I think TE is doing the right thing by creating this thread. Although the subject is still on the same old topic, but i think there is a need for it as we are all here to discuss, share views and searching for the right answer, aren't we. So let's do it in the artful way, the kindest and sincerest we can be.
I also hope that this would be a lively thread. But no doubt, I predict, circumstances will happen sometimes.
I'd like to post some views of mine on evidence of creationism but it's almost luch time...maybe later.

Peace

i wont call your kettle black if you put up your evidence.

[wil]

To get back to Tao's original post, I would like to point out that the only response that a creationist has given is a link to the Ooparts site, which, while some individual cases in the site may truly be anomalies, the majority of it appears to be either false or irrelevant in the discussion of evolution.

touche, valid point Sara(h)ng, except I am not a creationist, more of an explorer. It really seems like most of us fall into the camp that has issues with strict creationism or evolution...I think the ooparts site has some interesting information but also tends to place them squarely in the wacko camp in many minds.

And I know I am as guilty as any in diverting, sidetracking or otherwise hijacking a thread, but do think Sara(h)ng has a hugely valid point. This thread is for the exploration of evidence relating to the creationist model, not denegrating it, not supporting evolution... it would be nice to abide...to that end

halos true origin perspective insights connections and design

[Bandit]

here is a model from someone. this is not my personal beliefs on it & i dont feel i need to prove creation to anyone because that is the same thing as trying to prove there is a Creator & i feel that is the ultimate objective for this topic.

http://www.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/presentation.htm

How can creation science be real science if it involves God?

Creation science is the result of objective science for many beginning with an agnostic premise. Today's atheistic, naturalistic bias in science forces all explanations to be natural regardless of the evidence. Accepting the conclusion of intelligent design does not hinder investigation into creation. It in fact enhances it. Creation scientists investigate the created physical world to understand its design and to explain the properties of the material and forces that make up the creation. The foundation principles of modern science today was developed by creationists.

Physical evidence cannot provide absolute certainty of knowing things. Physical evidence can be used to test the plausibility or error in explanations of physical phenomena. But physical evidence cannot be used to establish absolute knowledge of anything. Why? Because there is more that we do not know than which we do know. Everyday new discoveries are made that change our understanding of the world. For example, in a 1999 issue of The Scientist, the discovery of brain mesenchyme cells was reported. Such cells are undifferentiated and can be used to generate new brain tissue. This dispelled decades of belief that brain cells in adults do not generate new growth. What else do we not know and awaits our discovery?

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Tao!

I can understand your concern, I have touched on it elsewhere a number of times: this, specifically, is a religious argument. Both sides feel threatened, both sides feel a threat to their respective political constituencies, and both sides are not above using...ummmm...artful ways and means of achieving their ends. Both sides it seems to me are at ease in contorting the facts to fit their dogma and doctrine, while heatedly pointing fingers at the other and accusing of deceptive tactics. There is a lot, a whole lot, of "pot calling the kettle black" going on between Christianity specifically and evolutionary biology specifically.

No doubt a lot dates back to the Higher Critical movement, which predates Darwin by what?, about a hundred years or so. It is a movement that seems to have as its motivation the rationalization of, and global indoctrination of atheism. To a large extent it has been successful. Somehow that movement settled into science and began an outright attack on religion in general and Christianity specifically, that settled in Darwinian evolution where it remains most deeply entrenched. In Europe, a blind eye may have been turned towards these events, the atheists even gaining a degree of sympathy. But in the heartland of America, such a direct challenge to the faith and sensibilities of the masses was not accepted lightly. A gauntlet was thrown down, and the battles are still waged to this day.

This is not about whether or not God is behind any of this. This is about political sway over the masses. Just as religious war has been throughout history. This is about whose God is going to win.

My two cents.

Juan, we are in agreement with this & i can see what you are saying. it is worth a lot more than two cents as far as i am concerned.
i commend you.

[sara[h]ng]

Originally Posted by Bandit

here is a model from someone. this is not my personal beliefs on it & i dont feel i need to prove creation to anyone because that is the same thing as trying to prove there is a Creator & i feel that is the ultimate objective for this topic.

http://www.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/presentation.htm

On this site, as well, there is a significant amount of falsehood. Try this one out:

First Law of Thermodynamics supports the supernatural model of origins.

1. Energy is not created by natural means.



2. The universe exists as matter and energy.

3. Therefore, the universe was created supernaturally.

4. The creation model conforms to the data.

The first comment is based on an unknown assumption. How is energy created? Is it created at all? Could something like the Big Bang have been responsible? Could God have been? At this point, we can't know. In fact, we don't even know that there was ever any beginning at all. Isn't it possible that everything in the universe always was and always will be?


The third comment is simply bad logic, based on assumption.


Granted there is some stuff on the site that I couldn't debunk right away, and maybe it's good, I don't know. But, when a person gives me several arguments supporting an idea, and I can look at one of the arguments and recognize it to be poor (intentionally so or not) and based on either the speaker not knowing what he's talking about, or assuming that I don't know enough to see the holes in it, I tend to be wary of any other arguments presented.

I would like to continue this but I'm going out of town this afternoon and I guess that means that I should pack something. So, until Sunday.

- Sarah

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by sara[h]ng

On this site, as well, there is a significant amount of falsehood. Try this one out:
[color=#000080][color=#000000]

The first comment is based on an unknown assumption. How is energy created? Is it created at all? Could something like the Big Bang have been responsible? Could God have been? At this point, we can't know. In fact, we don't even know that there was ever any beginning at all. Isn't it possible that everything in the universe always was and always will be?


The third comment is simply bad logic, based on assumption.


Granted there is some stuff on the site that I couldn't debunk right away, and maybe it's good, I don't know. But, when a person gives me several arguments supporting an idea, and I can look at one of the arguments and recognize it to be poor (intentionally so or not) and based on either the speaker not knowing what he's talking about, or assuming that I don't know enough to see the holes in it, I tend to be wary of any other arguments presented.

I would like to continue this but I'm going out of town this afternoon and I guess that means that I should pack something. So, until Sunday.

- Sarah


[/indent]

is that not what science is about? filling the holes?

you are entitled to your opinion & theories & so is he.
have fun til sunday .

[taijasi]

So far this thread reminds me of the scene in `Life of Brian' where much discussion takes place regarding the forming of a committee to investigate whether it may, or may not, indeed be a good idea to rescue Brian from being crucified. So without further ado ...

I wanted to question whether anyone familiar with carbon dating technology, modern astronomy, and the scientific method in general (verification through repeated experimentation) could really maintain a sensible position regarding Creation Science?

Looking at Webster's definition of Creationism, I see that Creationists believe in the notion of something proceeding from nothing. This is patently absurd. It is not simply illogical; it is absurd. Think about what this suggests, for just a moment. Here in my hand, I have nothing. WRONG!!!

I challenge anyone breathing to show me nothing. Friend, you can't do it. Strictly speaking, you can't even imagine it! And I dare say Deity can't either. As philosophers love to put it, nothing doesn't exist! And yes, as a double negative, this is also a tautology simply stating that there is existence. But that's not the point, or rather, it's only the converse.

As Empedocles put it, ex nihilo, nihil fit. Out of nothing, nothing comes. To say, "Oh, but G-d is all-powerful and all-wise and He can do ANYTHING He wants," is childish and foolish. You've begged quite a few questions just by uttering such nonsense ... but what you have not done is increase my sense of awe & wonder one iota by appealing to such a meaningless utterance - an absurdity and an impossibility!

So back to Creationism, this very notion of all of existence springing up from nothing - is nonsense. How do we know it isn't true? Because prior to the ever-expanding Cosmos that has existed since a moment after the singularity - there was only ... THE SINGULARITY!!!

And what was that "mode" or "modification" of being like? Damned if I know. But I can tell you that - while it might be NOTHING LIKE our current mode of existence - it was sure as hell not true nothingness. I just LOVE to sit and watch people try to conceive of nothingness, because it's actually a nice little Zen exercise and it gets people away from such absurdities as, "G-d created the universe out of nothing."

Perhaps it appears I'm being a little heavy-handed in arguing my point? Then challenge me. Please, by all means, as a proponent of Creationism, argue rationally and appeal to my common sense in an effort to explain the creation of something from nothing ... even though, as we know, this happens nowhere in the physical world that we have ever observed. Not even in the world of mysterious quantum physics can we either destroy or create energy ... or matter. We only change the state of matter/energy.

I am not scientifically-minded, personally. I do not put much stock in Darwinian evolution ... certainly not in the notion that "a fortuitous occurrence of atoms" explains the least of our daily experiences - let alone the miracle of life, be that molecular, cellular or what-have-you. I don't even accept the findings of carbon-dating unquestioned ... since I believe that Humanity stretches back easily 5 million years on this planet, if not 18 million.

The Giza Pyramids and the Sphinx, as I've said in other posts, are more like 200,000+ years old - not 5 or 6 thousand. Even the work of Robert Schoch and John Anthony West proves geologically beyond a modicum of doubt that we're looking at 10 or 12 thousand years, due to the evidence of water erosion. This, alone, flies in the face of a supposed Biblical chronology going back only 6,000 years. But then, Egyptologists such as Zahi Hawass - and still the prejudiced majority - maintain (for the sake of their jobs and reputations) that the Giza structures are recent tombs ... and time will show that they are wrong on both counts. Interestingly, their mistaken chronology dovetails with a literal interpretation of Genesis. Hmmm ....

If you think I think there are those with a vested interest in preserving such nonsense regarding human origins as those consistent with a literal interpretation of Genesis in the Hebrew Pentateuch, you're right. While some such people are relatively harmless and not very influential, others have a considerably far-reaching power structure to maintain ... and thus have made enemies with the Truth and the true Spirit of G-d.

I like to smile, too, when people mention conspiracy theories, but if you think the American and British governments (as but two, current examples) are nice & honest and always have your well-being & peace-of-mind at heart, then man, get to whiffin' on that coffee. And if you can smile and nod, then why on earth (sic) do you suppose the `Church' would be exempt from the same foibles, vices, and appetites for power?!?

This really doesn't have to do with denominations, nor Xianity (churchianity) alone ... although I can't recall the last time a Tibetan Buddhist tried to convert me, and I really don't think Buddhists care whether you believe in Dipankara, Kasyapa & Shakyamuni or not. They would just hope that people recognize the value, importance, and vital need to "practice the Dharma" ... in the same way that Christ hoped beyond hope that we might, likewise, recognize the same Spirit of the Divine dwelling within the hearts of all beings - neighbors, enemies, as well as ourselves - just as some could respond & resonate to this Spirit in Christ Jesus. But alas, we have failed to act accordingly, and my 10-second analysis is that this is precisely because people insist on literal interpretations of the word and not the Spirit - of the Law of Love ... and because the negative in human nature has been emphasized (by would-be followers) rather than innate Human Goodness. Christ spoke at length and repeatedly of the latter; if you prefer to quibble then you only support my point.

Well I meant no diatribe, but why, I ask, can't thinking, reasonable people from "both camps," simply agree that the world is full of beauty and wonder, and thus accept that quite possibly if not also likely there is intelligent, loving design behind all of manifestation, evidenced ceaselessly and splendidly in this little blue planet we call Home. Because, perhaps (?) - science would like to close the door on religion and on the sense of mystery that any spiritually responsive person (of whatever faith, or of no creed at all) can attest to ... and because religious zealotry would jealously guard any & all secrets that once may have been known by the Initate(d) - and yet which have long since been lost in the violence & ignorance of the Dark Ages (and the very cycle called The Dark Age from which Humanity is but slowly seeking to emerge).

When certain recognitions - which are but round the corner, in Humanity's near future - have been made, and when larger numbers of people can verify with the naked (but increasingly sensitive) eye that there "is more to matter than we have been taught," then the Evolution/Creationism debate might finally be put to rest. If already we distinguish between inert matter and that which is ANIMAted by something that biology vaguely terms life ... then might we one day confirm this distinction by the same first-person powers of clear-seeing which some, gifted individuals can already utilize?

[`Anima,' by the way, means breath, soul or spirit, from the ancient Latin, Greek and Sanskrit. Science is full of terminology with which its wiser, more perceptive, and more spiritually-minded contributors have gifted it over the ages - and even in recent centuries with the trends toward materialism, she has never been without Divine Inspiration - as every other Human endeavor. Newton, Galileo, Jacob Boehme, Johannes Kepler, and Paracelsus have all helped to breathe the Divine Life into Science & scientific endeavor.]

So maybe that will help to get the ball rolling ...

protokletos

[wil]

There have been several threads now that deal with the Creationist vs Evolutionist theories of where life came from. Each of them seems to get bogged down in the details of evolutionary theory and primarily in the question of abiogenesis. This means that the creationist model evades scrutiny.

On this thread I would like to see evidence for Creationist theory presented for debate. It would be good to see the views of supporters from all faiths that hold such a theory represented and justified with empirical evidence to support their ideas.

I look forward to a lively debate.

I suppose I looked forward erroneously to a utopian thread...one where one did as the thread starter requested..not jump to the evolutionary debate but put forward creationist concepts and evidence sort of like a brainstorming session (where everything is allowed out on the table) prior to it turning into ... the lively debate.

Please, by all means, as a proponent of Creationism, argue rationally and appeal to my common sense in an effort to explain the creation of something from nothing ... even though, as we know, this happens nowhere in the physical world that we have ever observed.

I do find it interesting that we are asking the creationists to prove what the big bangists posit. After all the creationists say God is, always was and ever will be...and that out of that God put everything into nothing...now the scientific parallel is that out of the ethers all creation occurs. Ether you think God may be involved or you don't. Ether way I'm willing to explore what the creationists come up with prior to treating all theories as a pinata.

namaste,

[Ciel]

Ponderings on nothingness, inspired by Taijasi's words.

Looking at this empty hand, I see fine electrical emanations, an alive thing. Between these small expanses with fingers spread, energy stretched, finite and infinite worlds appear, movement, colour, interactive miniscule apparitions, not matter as we know matter to be, yet form that can be entered by matter, and passed through, ruled by it's own laws, created by it's own nature.
Before this hand existed the electromagnetic form of God and creation was already in place,waiting, while this hand exists it is supported in maintenance by the same. And nowhere on this planet is there nothing. Once tuned the eyes can see, intelligence touches intelligence, God and creation is everywhere.

I open the hand and witness existence in creational form.

I close the hand and God slips through the fingers.

[Tao_Equus]

Even the most open, most expansive and unpredjuidiced mind living a long life of study and contemplation can but touch on a fraction of the knowledge humanity as a whole has accumulated. Those that have the greatest intellect and depth of cognition are often found to say "I dont know". To take any single volume from mans vast achievment, and every book is by mans hand, and to believe verbatim that it is the word of God is an insult to the very idea of God. We are Gods creation, every word however frivolous, irrelevant, profound or inspiring is by that token a part of Gods creation. To blindly follow any single doctrine is not service to God, its a disservice. The truth is everywhere.

I know there are some completely athiestic scientists out there. They are a minority group however. The prominent ones tend to make a career of their atheisim and so their vested interest is easilly understood. And whether by design or otherwise they set a kind of control function by which the genuine free thinker can test their thoughts. Most people in science do however have some belief, infact I think many people who set out as atheists have discovered their beliefs by looking at the universe under the microsope of the scientific method. Science and Spirituality have been uneasy bedfellows for some time but I disagree, Taijasi ,that most sciences are out to close the door on spirituality, quite the opposite. The frontiers of science are pushing them ever wider open for us.

I predict that reasonably soon science will allow us to see and measure that which we call our souls. I feel quite confident that this will give us scientific evidence that we are a part of God. That we need no salvation through following the dictates of some dusty old tome because we are all now and forever a part of God anyway. Our individual selves are but countless works of expression of a singular whole. Monotheisms as religeons I think miss the point in so much as God is not one 'thing' but the entirety of things. And followers of these religeons all too often guilty of gross oversimplification. Quoting a few words from here, and a few from there in support of any argument is irrelevant. The one fundamental of Faith should be Love, of oneself and of ALL others, for we all are the same child.

Religeous leaders who demand that ideas such as the 6000 yr old date for Creation are facts are simply control freaks. They want their 'flocks' to hang on their every word. They are the paranoid dictators of the religeous world and I feel they have very little spirituality in them. They are entirely creatures of ego. The 'flock' themselves I find it difficult to fathom and difficult to describe without appearing condescending. I have no desire to evangelicise or convert anybody for I believe while we are all one we each have our own path to walk. Free thinkers tend not have a whole lot of desire for power over others in my experience. Those with singular ambition and ego do. And there are some that have neither and are content to be led. My hope is that in years to come science and our modern technologies creates an atmosphere more conducive to free thinking. And that that in turn will bring us all much closer together and make it more difficult for the individual ego to operate and manipulate. I hope that I am not a hapless romantic in that dream.


Regards

TE

[Kaldayen]

Very inspiring post Tao_Equus!

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I hope that I am not a hapless romantic in that dream.

I hope too. We need dreamers to make other people dream.
___
Kal

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Kaldayen

Very inspiring post Tao_Equus!



I hope too. We need dreamers to make other people dream.
___
Kal

lol..thx.....reads like a bit of a sermon to me now.....wish you had 30 days not 30 minutes to make edits .....or maybe even 40 days and 40 nights

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Ciel

Ponderings on nothingness, inspired by Taijasi's words.

Looking at this empty hand, I see fine electrical emanations, an alive thing. Between these small expanses with fingers spread, energy stretched, finite and infinite worlds appear, movement, colour, interactive miniscule apparitions, not matter as we know matter to be, yet form that can be entered by matter, and passed through, ruled by it's own laws, created by it's own nature.
Before this hand existed the electromagnetic form of God and creation was already in place,waiting, while this hand exists it is supported in maintenance by the same. And nowhere on this planet is there nothing. Once tuned the eyes can see, intelligence touches intelligence, God and creation is everywhere.

I open the hand and witness existence in creational form.

I close the hand and God slips through the fingers.

this is real good Ciel. i printed it & hung it on my fridge