again ... where is it in the Bible? 3000, 6000, or even 20 years old ago -- show me in the Bible. if you are going to argue against the validity of Christian creationism, you need to argue from the source. these numbers are only assumptions ... without evidenced proof from the Bible; these estimations are not truths held in Christianity.
im not arguing against the bible though, im arguing against creationism.. which isn't based on a specific number given in the bible.
i guess i'm still in the majority. since 53% does not believe in the "Young Earth Creationism" theory. however, what is the point of the Christian creationism without the support of the Bible. When i mean support, i mean literal support. since, IMO humans can alternate, persuade, and interpreted subjectively. there is no hard evidence, unless it is written otherwise. you say that you are not arguing against Bible, but creationism? but what is creationism without the Bible. the Bible is its source of support -- without it, it is nothing. Read the source, does the Bible give specific time line of when the earth and its creation was created? because if not, you are simply arguing against individuals with their ideas -- which definitely has the possibility of being either wrong or right.
@apollon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory The above describes Evolution. The below can be applied to creationism. The difference is obvious so if one were to place creationism on the same field as evolution, it would just be silly to say the least. Just putting this information out there so no one gets confused about what evolution is and what creationism isn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis From the sentences I've bold, I wouldn't call creationism a hypothesis since I doubt that it'll last a fraction of the time that evolution has had to and still has to under the scientific miscroscope. Evolution has been under the miscroscope for over one hundred years and still going strong. Evolution as theory and fact: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact And I also suggest people research the Edwards_v._Aguillard case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard). In it you will find the "missing link." Here are the texts of the case - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html
^ alot of wiki there!!!! just trying to say that it aint always the best source to try and prove a point ''generally''.
If you disagree with something you should always check with different sources to varify the information. That rule applies when ever one is doing research regardless of how reliable the source may be unless it's coming straight from the horses mouth. And with that I would point you to Britannica, but it's also not safe from errors. Here are some information that supports wikipedia. http://www.henrikharsbo.dk/getit/2005/12/study_wikipedia.html http://scienceroll.com/2007/10/18/medicine-in-wikipedia-reliable-information/ Also, I'm assuming you've already checked with other sources before you posted your objection to the information provided in the links I posted prior that provides definitions to the word pertaining to them. And if that's correct then it's safe for me to assume that you knew prior to posting your disagreement that the definition provided in the links I posted were correct. So why bother posting ridicules aimed at wikipedia when I assume you knew that the information from wikipedia that I've provided were correct? Unless you didn't bother to check and just posted anything to smear Wikipedia's name.
i believe in the higher power of being - as for the 7 days of creation - well, i think everyone is entitled to their opinion - just dont force it on anyone else.
keep yer wig on, i never object to the information you provided, i said wiki is not a very reliable source GENERALLY, you understand that? did you read what i said properly? or are you jumping to conclusions.. did i say everything on it is wrong, i think not. dont blame me for smearing wiki's name, all i did was quote others, blame them if you got a problem.
i'm sorry p3ps1c0la, what's your point? fine, you win -- i shouldn't have call creationism a theory (at least scientifically speaking). what else should i've call it? fact? using fearless_fx post -- do you think the "young earth creationism" is a theory? sounds much like a theory to me. source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory
then im left wondering where your original post was sourced from, cause i could go on the net and find a million counter-points against intelligent design, creationism and god in general written by any Tom, Dick and Harry So you cant really criticize people on where their material came from, or you just picking on him cause he used Wiki I think this sums up intelligent design and creationism, irreducible complexity However this has been disproved many times, on bacteria flagellum and using a mousetrap example, i think this video sums it up pretty well [youtube]rW_2lLG9EZM[/youtube]
@master_g "dont blame me for smearing wiki's name, all i did was quote others, blame them if you got a problem." Haha wow, you posted quotes of others that don't agree wtih Wikipedia to smear Wikipedia's name in this thread but you don't want to own up to your intentions? It was obvious what you were trying to do. Smear the credibility of Wikipedia to try and persuade readers of this thread to second guess the information I provided and weaken my argument. I think that my deduction of your intentions by your actions were for the most part, correct. That's my conclusion. @apollon I stated my point. For a person to simply call creationism a theory can be misleading. So I made it a point to clearify the word theory and what creationism falls under and isn't. Evolution is a scientific theory, creationism is nothing more than a belief or a theory and I point to the definition of the word theory that's used within context. "In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common statement "It's not a fact, it's only a theory." True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis." And the point I was making was clearly stated. I said, "Just putting this information out there so no one gets confused about what evolution is and what creationism isn't". conjectural: "based primarily on surmise rather than adequate evidence; "theories about the extinction of dinosaurs are still highly conjectural"; "the supposed reason for his absence"; "suppositious reconstructions of dead languages"; "supposititious hypotheses" http://www.wordreference.com/definition/conjectural Conjecture: "In mathematics, a conjecture is a mathematical statement which appears likely to be true, but has not been formally proven to be true under the rules of mathematical logic. Once a conjecture is formally proven true it is elevated to the status of theorem and may be used afterwards without risk in the construction of other formal mathematical proofs. Until that time, mathematicians may use the conjecture on a provisional basis, but any resulting work is itself conjectural until the underlying conjecture is cleared up. In scientific philosophy, Karl Popper pioneered the use of the term "conjecture" to indicate a proposition which is presumed to be real, true, or genuine, mostly based on inconclusive grounds, in contrast with a hypothesis (hence theory, axiom, principle), which is a testable statement based on accepted grounds." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjecture I'll get back to you on the young earth thing in a few. I'm not familiar with it but off the bat, judging by the word "creationism" I wouldn't count on it. But we'll see.
^ lol i never quote my stuff from any tom,dick and harry, plus it even came to the attention of the person you've quoted. (how convenient too >.<) i never criticize him, i just said it wasn't a very reliable source, he can still use it all he wants, as long as he understands that "wiki" is not a stamp of authority as some seem to think it is (i was once guilty of this too). Nooo we don't pick on people on PA heheh i can find many other flaws, i guess they come and go, old ones revised and new one pop-up and the cycle continues. but its been pointed out already that it is theory which it is, i just dont like it when people try to claim evolution to be fact. so ill leave it there, good post dim8sum. -sorc-sorc-sorc-sorc-sorc-sorc-sorc-sorc-sorc-sorc-sorc-sorc-sorc-sorc-sorc-sorc-sorc-sorc
Now, as for the Young Earth Creationism, you can call it a theory but in the same context as creationism. I wouldn't call it a theory. I consider it to simply be a religious belief. I hope you're not too sick of seeing Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism "Young Earth creationism Young Earth creationism is the religious belief that the Earth and life on Earth were created by a direct act of God dating between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. Its adherents are Christians or Jews who believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days, taking the Hebrew text of Genesis as a literal account. Some adherents believe that existing evidence in the natural world today supports a strict interpretation of scriptural creation as historical fact, or that the scientific evidence supporting Darwinian evolution, geological uniformitarianism, and other theories which are at odds with a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account, are either flawed or misinterpreted. Many Young Earth creationists are active in the development of creation science, a creationist endeavor that holds that the events associated with supernatural creation can be evidenced and modelled through an interpretation of the scientific method. Young Earth creationists (YECs) claim that the lack of support for a Young Earth theory in professional science journals or among professional science organizations is due to discrimination and censorship. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that creationist claims have no scientific validity. A statement by 68 national and international science academies lists as evidence-based facts that have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines, without any contradiction from scientific evidence; that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old and has shown continuing change, that life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago, and has subsequently taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, and that the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicates their common primordial origin."
fair do's but i have to point out the bold part. When people say just cause its a theory its not fact, its very misleading and causes misunderstanding. Ill take a quote, might be quite broken, but it will give you the gist: If you have 2 hours to spare give this video a watch [youtube]JVRsWAjvQSg&feature=related[/youtube]
I think this is the third time I posted this particular article up on PA... But since countryboy mentioned it... May as well be remain hopeful that someone would actually read the article. And I am too lazy to retype everything I've said in another thread already... CBA to dig the post up now.
But at least with evolution people are trying to find evidence to prove it. The basis of intelligent design is that it's so complex therefore someone must have created it and the only evidence offered is a single book, the bible. I have been working as a university researcher for a few years now and one thing I've learn is that if I have writing a paper I need to reference multiple sources otherwise the paper just won't be accepted. It's perfectly fine that you believe in it, you have faith in the accuracy of the bible. After all the definition of "faith" is the believe in something without any evidence proving so (coincidentally that is also the definition of delusion but that's another discussion) but it is unreasonable for you to expect other people to do the same as you when you have offered no evidence. Disproving evolution does not prove intelligent design.
Wait a minute...So what you're saying is that because no one said evolution was a sound theory, you would believe all facts presented by ONE dated book? That's kind of bias don't you think? You're rejecting anything outside of the bible. And where are you seeing the evidence being supported? In the bible right? I could write a book too and make everything consistent with everything I said in a book. Would you believe? Why not? What makes me different than the person who wrote it thousands of years ago. I'd be pulling information out of the thin air. And by the way there are tons of contradictions in the bible, so I don't think there is any consistencies in the bible. What are you going to say? some things are not taken literal in the bible? It would seem to me only the wrong thinsg are not literal and the right things should be taken literal. DOesn't even make sense at all. You can't say those words in the bible are even words of god. Just because some guy told you in a church it was so, doesn't make it so. All the flaws are valid, BUT you cannot just put god in there. You're explaining every flaw in evolution based on nothing. Would you ever put on a exam "has ot be something..has to be". what grade would you get do you think? Just don't use the first argument, you're making yourseslf look really stupid unless you were intended it to be that way. You're missing the whole of the evolution theory. It's not a theory to explain who made us. It's a theory how we came about. Besides humans made humans. I would think you would know where babies came from... how can you not accept we came from apes, especially compared to something so far fetched like a super natural being?
