Geological Time: A Republican Explains

[Jack Springer]

[Quoted Post: Removed by Moderator]

My position on creation again -- I believe God created everything. I don't know how he did it -- the how is not important to me. The how has nothing to do with my faith or salvation.

I do have a problem with the theory of evolution. There are many gaps that cannot be explained. An evolutionist has to have a very strong faith or belief in the theory to accept it.

 

[cityboy-stl]

No one ever seems to bring this up but I've noticed it since I was a little kid. In Genesis all the plants and vegetation are created on the third day and the sun on the fourth day. It doesn't take a scientist to know that you can't grow plants in the dark! So while "light" was created on the first day, the sun specifically was created later. Do you think God got his days mixed up? Or maybe taking this as a literal series of sequential events is not what God really intended? You think?

On the other hand, I say that "Let there be light!", is as good a description of the Big Bang as any in science. It does say "Let the earth bring forth life" which sounds like an evolutionary process to me. In very general broad terms from the big bang to the emergence of humanity over 13.75 billion years, Genesis comes pretty close. Big Bang, formation of stars and galaxies, formation of the earth, emergence of life on earth, beginnings of intelligence and humanity, an initial union with God.

I personally do not see a conflict between the Genesis story and science if viewed from a much higher perspective. It just makes no sense at all to view the Genesis story as an actual, literal, day-by-day creation story. It kind of reduces God to a magician. The more science tells us about the facts of the universe the more we know about God. For example, the fact the iron in the hemoglobin in my blood that allows me to breathe was created by a super nova billions of years ago is far more awesome and spiritual than a one day "poof, there you are" creation.

Maybe I'm crazy but that's how I look at it.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Except they don't. Young Earth Creationism is no more Christian than is monarchy being the only acceptable form of government. Both those ideas are something that have to be forced in the Bible; they don't come from it.

That never stopped any true believer. Look at all the things that are, actually in fact, IN the bible and are utterly ignored. Shellfish, anyone?

 

[Rolyo85]

You're calling me a coward? This is political forum man -- it's not a boxing ring or a battlefield.

I answered your questions -- I just didn't answer them the way you wanted.

You got your panties in a wad when you and others couldn't accept the fact that Obama answered the creation question the same way Rubio answered it. Neither man wanted to be put in a corner -- they're politicians.

I am not calling you a coward. I am saying you are acting like one at the moment.

You did not answer my questions. You made a snarky retort, ADMITTED IT WAS SNARK, and told me I don't deserve better. Which is cowardly.

The claim about Obama and Rubio saying the same thing after PAGES of discussing the glaring difference - whether it should be taught in schools - is a lie, and will be reported as I have been reporting all of your direct lies so far

 

[xbuzzerx]

My position on creation again -- I believe God created everything. I don't know how he did it -- the how is not important to me. The how has nothing to do with my faith or salvation.

I do have a problem with the theory of evolution. There are many gaps that cannot be explained. An evolutionist has to have a very strong faith or belief in the theory to accept it.

There are gaps in evolution, true. However evolution does not require pure faith for its credentials.

To simply leap from "there are some gaps in the evolutionary chain that haven't been discovered yet" to "believing in evolution at all requires faith, just like a religion!" is ridiculous. If there's no evolution why are there antibacterial resistant diseases? Why does the flu come back?

If you believe in the Christian cosmology and a literal interpretation of its story of creation-- fine. But don't expect rational, secular people, or even people who aren't of your religion, to give it any more attention than they would a Greek myth. And don't equate it with something that does not require blind faith in order to actually see at work in the natural world as objective, measurable fact.

 

[Rolyo85]

My position on creation again -- I believe God created everything. I don't know how he did it -- the how is not important to me. The how has nothing to do with my faith or salvation.

I do have a problem with the theory of evolution. There are many gaps that cannot be explained. An evolutionist has to have a very strong faith or belief in the theory to accept it.

There are "many gaps that cannot be explained" but "and God said "let there be light"" is legit?

 

[Jack Springer]

There are "many gaps that cannot be explained" but "and God said "let there be light"" is legit?

Try to understand man. There are people who have different beliefs than yours.

 

[Rolyo85]

Try to understand man. There are people who have different beliefs than yours.

Try to understand, man. That's not a good enough answer in an online argument. You can either defend your positions, or you're not able to play with the big kids. Will you answer my question with a direct, non-evasive or abrasive answer?

Which class do you want creationism to be taught at? And should it be JUST creationism and evolution, or do we teach the Koran version and the Greek and Norse myths about the creation as well?

 

[xbuzzerx]

Try to understand man. There are people who have different beliefs than yours.

That's completely off the point. He pointed out a completely legitimate double standard in your position. You reject evolution because of "gaps" when religion is nothing but gaps. It requires faith and that's the SOLE thing that lends to believing in any religion.

 

[Kulindahr]

No one ever seems to bring this up but I've noticed it since I was a little kid. In Genesis all the plants and vegetation are created on the third day and the sun on the fourth day. It doesn't take a scientist to know that you can't grow plants in the dark! So while "light" was created on the first day, the sun specifically was created later. Do you think God got his days mixed up? Or maybe taking this as a literal series of sequential events is not what God really intended? You think?

On the other hand, I say that "Let there be light!", is as good a description of the Big Bang as any in science. It does say "Let the earth bring forth life" which sounds like an evolutionary process to me. In very general broad terms from the big bang to the emergence of humanity over 13.75 billion years, Genesis comes pretty close. Big Bang, formation of stars and galaxies, formation of the earth, emergence of life on earth, beginnings of intelligence and humanity, an initial union with God.

I personally do not see a conflict between the Genesis story and science if viewed from a much higher perspective. It just makes no sense at all to view the Genesis story as an actual, literal, day-by-day creation story. It kind of reduces God to a magician. The more science tells us about the facts of the universe the more we know about God. For example, the fact the iron in the hemoglobin in my blood that allows me to breathe was created by a super nova billions of years ago is far more awesome and spiritual than a one day "poof, there you are" creation.

Maybe I'm crazy but that's how I look at it.

Well said!

The imposition of a modern view of history on something that was written in an entirely different manner is insulting to God exactly because it makes of Him a little boy popping animals and plants into existence full-blown to populate his farm and forest. Grandeur is found in realizing that God could put out His finger and where there was nothing and nowhere a place emerges, one that over time unfolds and then focuses on a process we call life. That from a few constants imposed on His burst of 'light' we got a world with sunsets and snow and horses and beer -- that is grandeur!

 

[Kulindahr]

That never stopped any true believer. Look at all the things that are, actually in fact, IN the bible and are utterly ignored. Shellfish, anyone?

LOL

The shellfish rule is irrelevant anyway -- God says so, twice, in the Book of Acts.

 

[xbuzzerx]

LOL

The shellfish rule is irrelevant anyway -- God says so, twice, in the Book of Acts.

Touching a woman during her unclean time should get you cast out of the tribe! I'll be here all week.

 

[Kulindahr]

Try to understand man. There are people who have different beliefs than yours.

The one who needs understanding is you: when it's science v not science, "beliefs" are irrelevant. "Beliefs" about the world can only be relevant as acceptable options if there is no God, or if there is but God is unpredictable, undependable, not to be counted on. If God is as the Bible describes, someone who is trustworthy and constant, then science is to be relied on. When science has established something, either it's sound or God is a liar.

And that's my problem with young earth creationists: they're calling God a liar.

 

[Jack Springer]

Try to understand, man. That's not a good enough answer in an online argument. You can either defend your positions, or you're not able to play with the big kids. Will you answer my question with a direct, non-evasive or abrasive answer?

Which class do you want creationism to be taught at? And should it be JUST creationism and evolution, or do we teach the Koran version and the Greek and Norse myths about the creation as well?

There is nothing wrong with teaching kids that there are different opinions regarding how the world was created. A science class in 5th grade, 3rd hour on a Tuesday would be a great time. Specific enough?

You're a person who believes in choice -- why not outline to the students that there are different opinions regarding how creation happened. Go over the different theories. Explain that there are many differences and that not just one may be the correct one.

 

[xbuzzerx]

There is nothing wrong with teaching kids that there are different opinions regarding how the world was created. A science class in 5th grade, 3rd hour on a Tuesday would be a great time. Specific enough?

You're a person who believes in choice -- why not outline to the students that there are different opinions regarding how creation happened. Go over the different theories. Explain that there are many differences and that not just one may be the correct one.

It doesn't belong in a science classroom. All it requires to understand why that's inappropriate is a very very rudimentary understanding of the scientific method.

Why do you think every single kid alive in the western hemisphere isn't already aware that there are alternate, spiritual beliefs as to how the cosmos was created, and why do you think they need a special time slot set aside in education to reinforce this knowledge?

And, going back to the issues that were raised earlier-- how exactly are you going to have any time to teach any science at all if you have to split the time with Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Judaic, Daoist, animist and every other creation story?

 

[Kulindahr]

It requires faith and that's the SOLE thing that lends to believing in any religion.

Not so. I had the privilege to be part of a Creationist club back before the fundie Christians stole the term. It was a group of people who because of their studies of science and other subjects had concluded that there had to be a Creator who at the very least launched the whole thing. There wasn't even a requirement that the Creator believed in be considered a person in any sort of the word. It didn't matter if you were Christian or Buddhist or agnostic, because doctrine and revelation had nothing to do with it.

 

[Kulindahr]

There is nothing wrong with teaching kids that there are different opinions regarding how the world was created. A science class in 5th grade, 3rd hour on a Tuesday would be a great time. Specific enough?

You're a person who believes in choice -- why not outline to the students that there are different opinions regarding how creation happened. Go over the different theories. Explain that there are many differences and that not just one may be the correct one.

There are no "different theories". What comes out of a holy book is not a theory. If somehow it could be used to make unique predictions that would set that version apart from others, it could rise to the level of a hypothesis -- and only once the predictions proved out would there be a chance to call it a theory.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Not so. I had the privilege to be part of a Creationist club back before the fundie Christians stole the term. It was a group of people who because of their studies of science and other subjects had concluded that there had to be a Creator who at the very least launched the whole thing. There wasn't even a requirement that the Creator believed in be considered a person in any sort of the word. It didn't matter if you were Christian or Buddhist or agnostic, because doctrine and revelation had nothing to do with it.

I read this post and while I appreciate separating sane Christians from fundamentalist ones, I don't see how one viewpoint was based on evidence presented to support the existence of god over the other viewpoint. Both still require faith.

I believe perhaps you misinterpreted me as saying that the scientific view and the religious view of creation are mutually exclusive-- which I did not say nor mean to imply.

 

[Jack Springer]

It doesn't belong in a science classroom. All it requires to understand why that's inappropriate is a very very rudimentary understanding of the scientific method.

Why do you think every single kid alive in the western hemisphere isn't already aware that there are alternate, spiritual beliefs as to how the cosmos was created, and why do you think they need a special time slot set aside in education to reinforce this knowledge?

And, going back to the issues that were raised earlier-- how exactly are you going to have any time to teach any science at all if you have to split the time with Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Judaic, Daoist, animist and every other creation story?

Do kids know the different theories? They don't even know the name of the current vice-president or who Hitler was.

I doubt that teaching this subject and the different theories would really take that much time.

 

[Rolyo85]

There is nothing wrong with teaching kids that there are different opinions regarding how the world was created. A science class in 5th grade, 3rd hour on a Tuesday would be a great time. Specific enough?

You're a person who believes in choice -- why not outline to the students that there are different opinions regarding how creation happened. Go over the different theories. Explain that there are many differences and that not just one may be the correct one.

Like Kulindahr pointed out, Creationism or Norse mythology are NOT theories. They are MYTHS. The big bang is a theory, rooted in quantifiable facts. It is not certain, but it has a body of proof, and things that you could point out in the real world and say "those make that theory valid". No religion has that. If it did, it would not be a religion to begin with.

I believe in choice, which is why I'm fine with a religion class that teaches kids ALL religious systems (to the horror of you and yours). But science class should be exclusively reserved for science. Or else I could just demand that my theory of the Big Evil Llama that disgorged the world after eating a bad coconut be respected on equal footing with the Christian mythology. I mean, why not?