Have you ever thought Creationism is something we simply cannot comprehend because of our LACK of scientific knowledge?

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: Yzzim

Originally posted by: halik
no...
theres scientific evidence supporting evolution/big bag (background microwave radioation, the cooling of universe etc.). There is no evidence for creationism

evidence > no evidence


Big bag has credibility due to that evidence. Creation has just as much credibility as any theory that you can think of the moment ("halik made all that is" for example )

So you're saying that if God created the universe there wouldn't be background microwave radioation? The universe wouldn't be cooling?

It's almost humorous to read all these "facts" on the big bang, when God could have created the same exact thing.

If an extremely advanced alien race would drop by in spaceships to see how their petridish called Earth was coming along all the religious people would scream that 'god' created those aliens to bring life to the Earth.

 

[dpm]

Originally posted by: jjones
This is an interesting thread. I can't remember seeing a discussion on creation vs. evolution before.

How could we have missed this topic!
Also - we need to have more threads on Gay Marriage. I can't believe AT has totally ignored this important issue!

 

[PlatinumGold]

"Have you ever thought Creationism is something we simply cannot comprehend because of our LACK of scientific knowledge?

have you ever thought creation is described in the bible as it was simply because the bible writers could not comprehend because of their LACK of scientific knowledge??

the whole idea that the creation account is a scientific account of what happened and not a spiritual accounting requires the believer to assume so many things.

i've come to conclude that the bible was never intended to communicate scientific or historic truth but SPIRITUAL TRUTH only.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
"Have you ever thought Creationism is something we simply cannot comprehend because of our LACK of scientific knowledge?

have you ever thought creation is described in the bible as it was simply because the bible writers could not comprehend because of their LACK of scientific knowledge??

the whole idea that the creation account is a scientific account of what happened and not a spiritual accounting requires the believer to assume so many things.

i've come to conclude that the bible was never intended to communicate scientific or historic truth but SPIRITUAL TRUTH only.

s/spiritual truth/spiritual guidelines/

 

[FuZoR]

personally i like to think aliens created us and planted us here on earth

 

[Banana]

I cannot comprehend the Tooth Fairy because of my lack of scientific knowledge.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
"Have you ever thought Creationism is something we simply cannot comprehend because of our LACK of scientific knowledge?

have you ever thought creation is described in the bible as it was simply because the bible writers could not comprehend because of their LACK of scientific knowledge??

the whole idea that the creation account is a scientific account of what happened and not a spiritual accounting requires the believer to assume so many things.

i've come to conclude that the bible was never intended to communicate scientific or historic truth but SPIRITUAL TRUTH only.

It doesn't answer the question though.

Given:
God exists and God created the universe.

Given: We do not comprehend the fact that AS STATED IN THE PREMISE

Then we lack some knowledge either from an experimental POV or we are incapable of understanding it. Therefore we can never know if that is the case.

HOWEVER, it MAY be the case that as science advances, SOME parts of Creationism MIGHT be validated.

If we are talking about a 6k y/o Earth, then I don't believe that will happen. On the other hand, there are arguments that creation was directed. It may be possible to determine something about that.

Possible? Who knows?

None of us do. This is a metaphysical conjecture, and therefor may not be verifiable one way or another which is what I believe.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
"Have you ever thought Creationism is something we simply cannot comprehend because of our LACK of scientific knowledge?

have you ever thought creation is described in the bible as it was simply because the bible writers could not comprehend because of their LACK of scientific knowledge??

the whole idea that the creation account is a scientific account of what happened and not a spiritual accounting requires the believer to assume so many things.

i've come to conclude that the bible was never intended to communicate scientific or historic truth but SPIRITUAL TRUTH only.

It doesn't answer the question though.

Given:
God exists and God created the universe.

Given: We do not comprehend the fact that AS STATED IN THE PREMISE

Then we lack some knowledge either from an experimental POV or we are incapable of understanding it. Therefore we can never know if that is the case.

HOWEVER, it MAY be the case that as science advances, SOME parts of Creationism MIGHT be validated.

If we are talking about a 6k y/o Earth, then I don't believe that will happen. On the other hand, there are arguments that creation was directed. It may be possible to determine something about that.

Possible? Who knows?

None of us do. This is a metaphysical conjecture, and therefor may not be verifiable one way or another which is what I believe.

but there is NO answer to the question as posed by the OP. it is purely conjecture. is it possible that we simply do not comprehend?? YES, it's possible, but the possibilities are boundless.

however, i still believe the OP's question has a questionable assumption, that the bible was intended to communicate scientific truth.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: zener
Conjur,
I think that the site you provided could be misleading. I read the very first items and found my self disagreeing with their thinking, e.g. scientific thinking seldom concludes and never proves. I am not quite sure what exactly they are trying to say but it seems somehow flawed. The site seems also very simplistic and too vague. I would try the talk origins site. I think it contains a more precise and professional discussion on the topics of evolution/creationism.

Yeah...talkorigins is another good site. I just thought the Berkeley site would be easier to understand for those weak of mind.

 

[Czesia]

Originally posted by: LOLyourFace
Seriously, I think of this from time to time.

A lot of atheists and non-believers regard creationism (the world created by a superior god) as a scientific-blasphemy and illogical.

But just what is science really? We speak as if our knowledge of our surrounding is perfect. But we all know that it is FAR from perfect. As a matter of fact, we really don't know anything.

IMHO, our knowledge is not even remotely adequate enough to explain even mankind's most primitive questions....Where did we come from? Does space have its end? If so, what is beyond it? Why do we teach evolution in school as we know it is flawed and far from 'scientific'? Where does our morality and ethics come from?

Is it truly (if any) scientific at all that the Big Bang is the very cause of your existence right now, reading this post while sipping on your drink? Then where did the big bang come from? You mean to tell me this pre-Big Bang 'singular matter' held all recipe for space, our world and the living and non-living things in our surroundings? Then where the fvck did Big Bang get this?

Before I go any further keep in mind, I'm not here to enforce any religion on you. This is something that I've been thinking about lately and some of you are probably already nodding right now, religious or not.

I've been thinking maybe creationism is something we cannot explain because our knowledge is very lmited. As stated before, what the hell do we know-- as we love to say-- scientifically? Our science's take on our origin becomes all theories, gone are the scientific procedures and hard facts.

Maybe creationism IS something that is far too advanced for us to understand and there IS a science behind it afterall? Maybe there is a complex mechanism behind god's existence. Maybe life after death IS a scientific process where god aids us to abandon our physical forms and exist in the form of pure energy for eternity... Maybe and just maybe, we simply cannot fathom its technology with our current knoweldge...

I mean, take the people from 1000 AD and tell them we can fly now. And not just fly, we fly in a metal casing with metal wings and you can get anywhere in the world within 24 hours. They would be utterly speechless. Their understanding cannot even grasp WTF is going on, but we can sit them down and explain how it works step-by-step very slowly... Because there WAS a logic to it after all...Maybe religion/god/creationism is on the same parallel, with us being the old folks?

Please refrain from knee-jerk responses and really think about this. AND please DO contribute what you have to say, as with my knoweldge on science is very limited and I can learn a lot from different perspectives...

In answer to the original question, I have also thought about this question. I don't believe that this is a matter of evolution vs creation at all, but rather that there are still many things that we cannot understand nor explain. That is what makes science such a great thing is that it can explain the world around us and help us to understand life.

Furthermore, I think your problem with understanding the big bang theory, evolution, etc. is your lack of scientific knowledge. I'd also like to point out that the Catholic Church *accepts* the big bang theory. I'll attempt to fill one of the gaps: you don't believe that something can just suddenly pop into existence. That is erroneous. Matter can and does pop into and out of existence all the time. At the sub atomic level, space is a chaotic sea of particles popping into and out of existence. Scientific experiments, while unable to observe these particles directly, observes the interaction these particles have on the matter around us, giving us very clear evidence for their existence.

I also tend to agree with DrPizza. The majority of people do not seem to understand the true meaning of the word "theory", or how to differentiate it from fact. For example (and correct me if I'm wrong), but the existence of electrons is theory. No one has ever seen an electron, but we can see the effects of electrons and scientific evidence[i/] supports their existence.

I think that a some other good points were made here as well, but I think that's all for me, folks.

 

[jhu]

Also, for those of you who instantaneously disregard any idea/post containing the words "creation", "god", or "religion", yet still criticize people for their "blind faith," it is a two sided coin:

"Doubt is the necessary tool of knowledge." -Tillich

the problem with bringing god to the table for explaining things is that it does not advance our knowledge at all. saying that god directed evolution is not very substantive because the "how" part is left out leaving us with no advancement in our knowledge base.

btw, my brother went to a catholic elementary school, and i was reading through one of his science books from years ago. one of the factoids was: "how is an atom able to hold all its elements together when such powerful positive charges are so close together. [some quote from the bible], thus it is jesus that binds the atom together! how wonderful is he that he is able to do this for us?"

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: jhu
Also, for those of you who instantaneously disregard any idea/post containing the words "creation", "god", or "religion", yet still criticize people for their "blind faith," it is a two sided coin:

"Doubt is the necessary tool of knowledge." -Tillich

the problem with bringing god to the table for explaining things is that it does not advance our knowledge at all. saying that god directed evolution is not very substantive because the "how" part is left out leaving us with no advancement in our knowledge base.

btw, my brother went to a catholic elementary school, and i was reading through one of his science books from years ago. one of the factoids was: "how is an atom able to hold all its elements together when such powerful positive charges are so close together. [some quote from the bible], thus it is jesus that binds the atom together! how wonderful is he that he is able to do this for us?"

To bring God to the table to explain things you first have to prove that God exists. If you can't then he can't be used for a logical argument!

 

[jhu]

To bring God to the table to explain things you first have to prove that God exists. If you can't then he can't be used for a logical argument!

the problem is that given evidence x, most people will see things one way. but given evidence x, and maybe some other inferences, some people will say "god." to such people i say "the use of god as an explanation halts our quest for knowledge."

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: jhu
To bring God to the table to explain things you first have to prove that God exists. If you can't then he can't be used for a logical argument!

the problem is that given evidence x, most people will see things one way. but given evidence x, and maybe some other inferences, some people will say "god." to such people i say "the use of god as an explanation halts our quest for knowledge."

I've must of had to much coffee because I don't understand what it is you are saying. It's probably just me.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: jhu
To bring God to the table to explain things you first have to prove that God exists. If you can't then he can't be used for a logical argument!

the problem is that given evidence x, most people will see things one way. but given evidence x, and maybe some other inferences, some people will say "god." to such people i say "the use of god as an explanation halts our quest for knowledge."

I've must of had to much coffee because I don't understand what it is you are saying. It's probably just me.

the use of god is a crutch. anything that can't be explained is attributed to god, but this does not actually further the base of knowledge.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: jhu
To bring God to the table to explain things you first have to prove that God exists. If you can't then he can't be used for a logical argument!

the problem is that given evidence x, most people will see things one way. but given evidence x, and maybe some other inferences, some people will say "god." to such people i say "the use of god as an explanation halts our quest for knowledge."

I've must of had to much coffee because I don't understand what it is you are saying. It's probably just me.

the use of god is a crutch. anything that can't be explained is attributed to god, but this does not actually further the base of knowledge.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: tweakmm
It's interesting that you bring up people from the past being unable to comprehend advanced concepts. People have been saying that we were created by a supreme god since humans have been around and it's a very crude view of the world. The concept of god is a human device to explain what we feel around us. I do think that the meaning to existance is something that very few people actualy have the capacity to comprehend, but I don't think it's in the form of a supreme ruler that created everybody. If you are wondering where the stuff for the big bang came from, I ask you where god came from. If anything, they are one in the same and the whole concept of god is the human comprehension of the universe and death/ascention is the human comprehension of the energy and matter that your body has used returning to the universe.

How arrogant must you be to convince yourself you can possibly comprehend the answer to that question? If there is a God, and that God created all the intricacies involved in science, metaphysics, conscience, and all of the universe, how could you possibly be intelligent enough to comprehend his reasons?

Personally I believe in the big bang, as do most physicists. But since the temperal and spacial dimensions come from the big bang, there can be no questions such as "where and when did it occur" or "what was before it?"

To ask what impetus caused it to happened, well, there would be no possible answer except for God. Are the dozens of precisely tuned cosmic values (ie mass and charge of subatomic particles, ratio of hydrogen and helium to deuterium, gravitational constant, etc...) necessary for intelligent life all random occurances?

If you ask me, its much more of a stretch for those who believe in anthropic principles (including new string/multiverse theories) for enlightenment.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: tweakmm
It's interesting that you bring up people from the past being unable to comprehend advanced concepts. People have been saying that we were created by a supreme god since humans have been around and it's a very crude view of the world. The concept of god is a human device to explain what we feel around us. I do think that the meaning to existance is something that very few people actualy have the capacity to comprehend, but I don't think it's in the form of a supreme ruler that created everybody. If you are wondering where the stuff for the big bang came from, I ask you where god came from. If anything, they are one in the same and the whole concept of god is the human comprehension of the universe and death/ascention is the human comprehension of the energy and matter that your body has used returning to the universe.

How arrogant must you be to convince yourself you can possibly comprehend the answer to that question? If there is a God, and that God created all the intricacies involved in science, metaphysics, conscience, and all of the universe, how could you possibly be intelligent enough to comprehend his reasons?

Personally I believe in the big bang, as do most physicists. But since the temperal and spacial dimensions come from the big bang, there can be no questions such as "where and when did it occur" or "what was before it?"

To ask what impetus caused it to happened, well, there would be no possible answer except for God.

Wrong, the answer is "We don't know"

 

[jhu]

How arrogant must you be to convince yourself you can possibly comprehend the answer to that question? If there is a God, and that God created all the intricacies involved in science, metaphysics, conscience, and all of the universe, how could you possibly be intelligent enough to comprehend his reasons?

must there be a reason for everything? if there is a god, perhaps there is no reason.

 

[Babbles]

This crap needs it's own forum.

By the way, no.