Creationism Vs. Evolution: The Debate Is Live Tonight online at 7pm- http://www.npr.org

[PeterMP]

Just because something looks a certain way or appears to be a certain way doesn't mean it has to be a certain way. Just as Ken Ham asserted, it's fine and dandy that certain things appear to be millions of years old doesn't mean they are. No one was there in the beginning and no one will ever know.

 

Okay, but isn't Ken Ham essentially asserting that he DOES know.

 

That the science is WRONG.

 

Is it possible that God did generate a universe that is only a few thousand years old that appears to be billions of years old?

 

Sure!

 

But why would He do that?

 

Why would you make that assumption?

[AsburySkinsFan]

God gave us intelligent minds, the lesson of faith is not one which requires us to ignore that gift.

[Tatankgough]

OK, now I get it. The Flintstones wasn't really a silly cartoon....it is a documentary! Whatever dude!

 

How stupid can some people be??

[Corcaigh]

It cannot be denied that one of the reasons the "majority" of scientists sway one way is due to the fear of implications and punishments. So many scholars/professors/scientists are being suppressed to keep quiet or simply forced to "believe" a certain way.

This is all part of your fantasy required to hold onto a young earth creationist view. Seriously, if you knew actual research scientists, you would know how much they love to take contrary and challenging positions. Nothing, and I mean nothing, would be greater for most research scientists than to discover scientific evidence of a creator. It would make them among the most famous people in history, and large wealth would come with it. I think they'd be willing to alienate the 'Secret Society of Science-Funding Puppetmasters' in order to accomplish this and risk losing a paltry research grant.

 

Our world will do anything and everything it can to never let God be truly mainstream.

Really, you are holding onto some fantasy to think mainstream society doesn't believe in God. What you actually mean is that mainstream society (Christian, Evangelical Christian, other faiths and secular alike) entirely rejects the view that young earth creationism is a valid scientific description. This is NOT the same as rejecting God.

I have to tell you, this makes you sound like a tin-foil hatted lunatic. I say this because as an evangelical Christian, I prefer that other Christians not sound like tin-foil hatted lunatics.

 

 

This attempt at persuasion is very laudable, but there comes a point where a good ol' holy war to purge the heresy may be society's best way forward. Speaking as a former management consultant, when dealing with a problem department, sometimes you just need to "clean house".

unparalleled knowledge of squirrel breeding.

 

I'm glad that we have an expert here. Perhaps you can settle this whole 'evolution of species' thing?

 

Have you ever seen a blue whale emerge whole from the womb of a squirrel?

[Predicto]

It cannot be denied that one of the reasons the "majority" of scientists sway one way is due to the fear of implications and punishments. So many scholars/professors/scientists are being suppressed to keep quiet or simply forced to "believe" a certain way. 

 

Yes it can be denied.  I deny it.  You live in a fantasy land where scientists are faking their work and everyone is lying, but I know enough actual scientists to know that it isn't so.   You apparently need to believe this to maintain your worldview, but it does not make your belief rational or supportable or worthly of equal credence.

 

And I say this with great respect toward all people of faith.   

[Larry]

Guy has told Peter MP that "neither of us are scientists". (And, when it's been pointed out that he's wrong, come back with "well my opinion still counts just as much as his, anyway!")

And went from that, to telling techboy that there is a vast conspiracy to force all people involved in science to deny the existence of God.

James, I've gotta say,

I can't imagine how you can possibly make yourself look dumber than you already have.

But it's the offseason. And the Redskins stank.

I guarantee that you've got a LARGE audience, who's waiting to see your next attempt.

[dfitzo53]

I admit that I myself am no scientist. I can't say that the earth was made in 6 literal days or that the age is millions of years old. I agree with Ken Ham that it has to be a much younger life due to Biblical implications (such as sin) but I don't necessarily think it HAS to be 6 literal. I have no idea but I also feel strongly that millions of years is also incorrect. NO ONE knows.

I want to be careful how I say this, because my intention is not to pit religion against science any more than they already are, in whatever way you define those terms.

 

However, the scientific learning and extrapolation that states that the Earth must be roughly 4.5 billion years old is related to the science that allows us to run nuclear power plants and build smoke detectors and keep people safe from radiation.  Stating the Earth cannot be millions of years old requires rejecting what we know about radioactive decay at a very basic level.  It is logically untenable to accept that products based on radioactive materials work, and that we understand how they work, without also accepting that radiological dating is sound within a certain margin of error.

 

 

 

Do you know how difficult it is to believe/accept "mainstream" science? It cannot be denied that one of the reasons the "majority" of scientists sway one way is due to the fear of implications and punishments. So many scholars/professors/scientists are being suppressed to keep quiet or simply forced to "believe" a certain way. The implications of there actually being a "god" and especially the God of the Bible are HUGE. Our world will do anything and everything it can to never let God be truly mainstream.

Out of curiosity, can you provide any independent evidence for this claim?  Any at all?

[Corcaigh]

Out of curiosity, can you provide any independent evidence for this claim?  Any at all?

 

That's an easy one. Well except for the "independent" evidence part. There have been academics in science departments who decide one day to mix in religious proclamations in with their professional work. When their department heads ask them to stick to science in their professional work, and not preach religion on the clock, they claim academic censure and repression.

[War Paint]

The fact is, nobody has a clue on how old the earth is.  No one.  I don't see why anyone would firmly entrench themselves on one side or the other.  There is no way of knowing.

[Predicto]

That's an easy one. Well except for the "independent" evidence part. There have been academics in science departments who decide one day to mix in religious proclamations in with their professional work. When their department heads ask them to stick to science in their professional work, and not preach religion on the clock, they claim academic censure and repression.

 

 

True.  And there also have been students denied Ph.D's or denied tenure in scientific fields when they tried to pass off their religious views as a scientific argument or failed to perform actual science, and then they claim academic censure and repression.  Guys like Clifford Burdick and Jerry Bergman.  

 

So they go to diploma mills like Patriot University and get fake Ph.D's instead.

 

Here's a picture of Patriot University.

 

 

 

Here's a link to some of the credentials of major creation "scientists."

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html

 

And here's a link examining the claims of horrible discrimination creation "scientists" have suffered.

 

http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/discrim.htm

The fact is, nobody has a clue on how old the earth is.  No one.  I don't see why anyone would firmly entrench themselves on one side or the other.  There is no way of knowing.

 

Based on that standard, is there any way of knowing anything at all? 

 

How do you know George Washington ever existed?  Maybe people made him up.  You weren't there, you can't know for sure. 

[PF Chang]

 

Agree to disagree, when in Rome.

 

 

Is this Ron Burgundy? 

[Riggo-toni]

George Washington didn't ever really exist. Our "knowledge" of him is based on a fable parents taught their children to explain why his face was on the $1 bill.

[War Paint]

 

Based on that standard, is there any way of knowing anything at all? 

 

How do you know George Washington ever existed?  Maybe people made him up.  You weren't there, you can't know for sure. 

Of course there are some things we can know for certain.  We know that GW existed because there is plenty of historical evidence that was passed down throughout the years, just like we know there was a civil war over a 150 years ago.  There are some things we can know for certain. Other things like how old the earth is isn't one of them. 

 

Of course we could make a theory that GW was like the Wizard of Oz, a made up character to rally support to fight the British...hmmm.......interesting.  I'm off to write a book.  Wish me luck.

[PeterMP]

Of course there are some things we can know for certain.  We know that GW existed because there is plenty of historical evidence that was passed down throughout the years, just like we know there was a civil war over a 150 years ago.  There are some things we can know for certain. Other things like how old the earth is isn't one of them. 

 

Of course we could make a theory that GW was like the Wizard of Oz, a made up character to rally support to fight the British...hmmm.......interesting.  I'm off to write a book.  Wish me luck.

 

Are you saying that God couldn't have created the Universe ten minutes ago with pre-existing historical evidence for GW as part of the creation?

 

You know that God didn't do that?

 

What about the evidence the universe is billions of years old?

 

Isn't the light that we recieve from stars far away "historical evidence"?

[SoCalSkins]

 

And I say this with great respect toward all people of faith.   

 

That is the basis of why this "debate" has not been resolved. People who believe without evidence or in the face of overwhelming evidence should not be respected at all.

 

They should be mocked and ridiculed as intellectually dishonest at best or completely ignorant at worst.

 

Someone who believes in a young earth, talking snakes, virgin births, a 600 year old man putting a mating pair of each animal on a boat and other absurdities should rightfully be ridiculed.

 

The religious are the most arrogant, self-centered and intellectually dishonest people in existence. They think that a supernatural dictator converses with them, they think everything is built and designed for them, they overwhelmingly believe that the end of times will occur in their lifetimes. These people should be ridiculed, mocked, shunned and made to feel like the idiots that they are whenever they publically discuss their beliefs. The tide is already turning in that direction and will exponentially grow with passing years as more and more Americans identify as religiously unaffiliated.

[War Paint]

Are you saying that God couldn't have created the Universe ten minutes ago with pre-existing historical evidence for GW as part of the creation?

 

You know that God didn't do that?

 

What about the evidence the universe is billions of years old?

 

Isn't the light that we recieve from stars far away "historical evidence"?

It depends on how long God's 10 minutes are.  Are 10 minutes to God equivalent to our 10 minutes?  If so, my answer is no.  He couldn't have created the world 10 minutes ago.  Does 10 minutes in God's time equal to thousands, millions, billions of years ago?  Then I would say yes, God could have created the world 10 minutes ago.

 

There is no evidence that the universe is billions of years old.  Only theories.  I'm not saying it isn't a billion years old and I'm not saying it is.  I'm not saying it's 6,000 years old or it isn't.  Why?  Because nobody knows for sure how old the earth or the universe is.  Perhaps the stars, planets, and universe don't exist as we think they do.  Maybe it's all a program that is processed in our brains, a biological CPU.  Now that's a theory!  Hmm...after my GW book, I think I'm gonna start a cult.  Wish me luck!

[dfitzo53]

There is no evidence that the universe is billions of years old. Only theories. I'm not saying it isn't a billion years old and I'm not saying it is. I'm not saying it's 6,000 years old or it isn't. Why? Because nobody knows for sure how old the earth or the universe is.

Again, if you adopt this position you are rejecting hundreds of years of research and experimentation in chemistry and physics, particularly radioactive decay.

It's tantamount to saying we have no way of knowing how a smoke detector works.

[Larry]

It depends on how long God's 10 minutes are.  Are 10 minutes to God equivalent to our 10 minutes?

I think you're thinking of Dog.

 

There is no evidence that the universe is billions of years old.  Only theories.

And I think you're confusing "evidence" with "firsthand eyewitness testimony". And "theories" with "anything I don't want to pay attention to".

[RVAbrendan]

Again, if you adopt this position you are rejecting hundreds of years of research and experimentation in chemistry and physics, particularly radioactive decay.

It's tantamount to saying we have no way of knowing how a smoke detector works.

 

Isn't the creationist's rebuttal to methods used to date that the methods themselves are flawed?

[dfitzo53]

Isn't the creationist's rebuttal to methods used to date that the methods themselves are flawed?

But that's what I'm saying. That's an unreasonable position to adopt without some kind of groundbreaking evidence. It would turn everything we know about radioactive decay upside down.

[RVAbrendan]

But that's what I'm saying. That's an unreasonable position to adopt without some kind of groundbreaking evidence. It would turn everything we know about radioactive decay upside down.

 

You're absolutely correct - which is why this debate is often futile. 

[PeterMP]

It depends on how long God's 10 minutes are.  Are 10 minutes to God equivalent to our 10 minutes?  If so, my answer is no.  He couldn't have created the world 10 minutes ago.  Does 10 minutes in God's time equal to thousands, millions, billions of years ago?  Then I would say yes, God could have created the world 10 minutes ago.

 

There is no evidence that the universe is billions of years old.  Only theories.  I'm not saying it isn't a billion years old and I'm not saying it is.  I'm not saying it's 6,000 years old or it isn't.  Why?  Because nobody knows for sure how old the earth or the universe is.  Perhaps the stars, planets, and universe don't exist as we think they do.  Maybe it's all a program that is processed in our brains, a biological CPU.  Now that's a theory!  Hmm...after my GW book, I think I'm gonna start a cult.  Wish me luck!

 

Why couldn't He have created the universe 10 minutes ago our time?

 

There is evidence the universe is billions of years old

 

The fact that we see light from starts that would take long periods of times to get here is evidence.

 

Yes, there might be other explanations, but that doesn't mean it isn't evidence.

 

Formally, a theory is an idea that has been supported by evidence.

 

The idea that the universe is billions of years old is a theory.  It is supported by the evidence.

 

Are other things possible?

 

Yes.

 

Just like there might be other explanations for the "historical" evidence that George Washington existed, including that God actually created the Earth and Universe a short period of time ago and included "historical" evidence that George Washington existed.

 

The fact of the matter is the vast majority of us accept a large number of assumptions based on scientific evidence in our every day exsistence w/o questioning them or really thinking about them.

 

To say that I "like" the results from those assumptions in some cases (using computers (it isn't like anybody actually sees the movement of electrons), driving cars, etc.), but dismissing them in others seems intellectually dishonest to me.

[War Paint]

Again, if you adopt this position you are rejecting hundreds of years of research and experimentation in chemistry and physics, particularly radioactive decay.

It's tantamount to saying we have no way of knowing how a smoke detector works.

I wouldn't say hundreds of years.  Darwin's theory is around 160 years old.  Things like discovering electricity and penicillin don't answer the question "how old is the universe?".  Creationists can say you are rejecting thousands of years of scripture and scrolls.

[DaGoonie55]

That is the basis of why this "debate" has not been resolved. People who believe without evidence or in the face of overwhelming evidence should not be respected at all.

 

They should be mocked and ridiculed as intellectually dishonest at best or completely ignorant at worst.

 

Someone who believes in a young earth, talking snakes, virgin births, a 600 year old man putting a mating pair of each animal on a boat and other absurdities should rightfully be ridiculed.

 

The religious are the most arrogant, self-centered and intellectually dishonest people in existence. They think that a supernatural dictator converses with them, they think everything is built and designed for them, they overwhelmingly believe that the end of times will occur in their lifetimes. These people should be ridiculed, mocked, shunned and made to feel like the idiots that they are whenever they publically discuss their beliefs. The tide is already turning in that direction and will exponentially grow with passing years as more and more Americans identify as religiously unaffiliated.

 

I don't think I'm an idiot for believing in something greater than myself.  I don't think I'm "idiotic", with my microbiology and chemistry background.  I'm exceedingly proud of the fact that I went to college for free on an academic scholarship IN SCIENCE as a christian.  The absolute worst thing that can come from God not existing, is that I was made a better person because of it. 

 

The only idiots in this debate are those with closed minds and those that feel they are above others. 

 

Creationism has no place in schools, as law prohibits it.  New Earth theory is broken.  (And I say that with all respect, my mother and sister are strict literalists of the Bible.  Scripture wins in their eyes.)

 

Nothing is beyond the realm of possibility, if you open your heart and mind to it.  And maybe a little studying / research!

[dfitzo53]

I wouldn't say hundreds of years.  Darwin's theory is around 160 years old.  Things like discovering electricity and penicillin don't answer the question "how old is the universe?".  Creationists can say you are rejecting thousands of years of scripture and scrolls.

My post has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

 

The experimentation that has been done in chemistry and physics that has led to our present well-tested conclusions about the age of the solar system has been going on for hundreds of years.

 

The most important post in this thread, courtesy of techboy:

 

 

I have to tell you, this makes you sound like a tin-foil hatted lunatic. I say this because as an evangelical Christian, I prefer that other Christians not sound like tin-foil hatted lunatics.

My suggestion would be that if you want to believe in a young earth because of a particular narrow reading of the Bible, that you keep it to yourself. It's not a central tenet of Christianity, it's not essential to salvation, and pushing it simply furthers the idea that Christianity is at war with science.

Most everybody trusts science, for obvious reasons, and if you foster that view you're basically harming your (my) cause.

There's a reason that the other group that pushes this interpretation of the Bible hard is fundamentalist atheists. They benefit from that viewpoint too. Fundie Christians get to feel persecuted by "mainstream scientists" and fundie atheists get to portray religion as a backwards, out of date viewpoint that hurts humanity.