Are Young Earth Creationist stupid?

Post Reply New Topic

It's the "Young Earth" part of the belief that is the problem. Not so much the "Creationism".

You can postulate metaphysics behind physics (ie a God told the molecules what to do)at some distant point in time and space (just before the Big Bang maybe). And no one could disprove you. Probably no one would even try. But you cant assert that God created the Universe in the way creation is described in Genesis (that it all happened in one work week in 4004 BC, and that no gradual change was involved).

Long before Darwin it became apparent to Western thinkers that the Earth's surface had 'evolved': mountains rise up, then gradually get washed into the sea, then their sediments turn to rock, and so on. And it takes more than 6000 years. The concept was called "gradualism". Essentially it was "evolution" in the larger more general sense of the word meaning 'gradual change over time', and applied to the nonliving stuff of the earth.

Later some postulated that maybe living things also evolve (gradualism applied to that too). Finally Darwin suggested the possible mechanism that would drive evolution in living species: natural selection. And thus was born the concept of "evolution" in the narrow modern sense of "the origin of species via Evolution through natural selection".

You can dispose of Darwin if you want. But you would still be stuck living in a world with overwhelming evidence that the Earth is billions of years old, and that both the living, and the non living, matter on it has changed gradually over time. Maybe God causes things to evolve, or maybe it all happens naturalistically. But either way- it didnt happen the way Genesis described it.

For an educated person to take Genesis literally would not necessarily require stupidity, but it would demand a lot of denial, and willful ignorance.

Say what... I think I need to "fix" this post a bit~

Here are the areas in which I take issue with both the "Creationist™" and the "Evolutionist™" side of the Debate™-Fence™:

AO wrote that there is "Proof™" of "Evolution™", but in actual science, you have "Evidence™" rather than "Proof™" of any particular Theory or Hypothesis, then he goes on to say that "it's true" (but the moment you start claiming anything to be "True™" within "Science™", you move away from an "Agnostic™" approach, and have adopted a "Belief™" that can end up turning into a kind of a "Default-Position™" which not much different than a Religious-Belief).

Here in this following video with a Dean Radin interview, for example, Dr. Radin does a pretty good job of repeatèdly explaining/responding to the interviewer that Science™ is not about Proof™ (because she keeps calling it Proof™) but that Science™ is about Evidence™ (NOT to be confused with Proof™).

Regarding Country-Singer's post, whilst I did "fix" it a bit to reflect how much of it comes across as hypocrissy, the other issue that I take with it is that he's not very specific in addressing the reasons as to why his cognitive-processes accept or reject ABC/XYZ/etc. Exactly who are these Scientists™ whom are seeking Alternate-Theories ? What are their names or was this just a "parrotted" phrase that he got from a pastor or someone from Church™ ?

Also, regarding "the less it makes sense" part was not very specific either, because you have to point out the specific parts that do not make sense to you, otherwise I am going to question as to whether you even bothered to ask your teachers/professors to give it a better explanation, but if you could name specific Scientists™ who themselves say that ABC or XYZ of Evolution™-Theory do not fit their research-findings, then that is the kind of thing that at least lets me know you've done some home-work of your own (and I'm going to personally look at that particular Scientists™ materials because I always enjoy watching/observing the activities of Scientists™ who dare go against the Consensus™-beliefs of main-stream/conventional-Science™).

I have a lot of Trade-Mark-Marks™ through my response because those words in which I have tagged with Trade-Marks™ are in fact words to me that are potential Euphemisms™ and therefore they are somewhat meaningless words in which to try & use for an argument™ or debate™ due to the various contexts™ behind how someone is intending to use them versus how it might be interpreted by participants of the discussion™. The rest of my "fixed" post should be self-explanatory as to why I fixed™ the quoted portions in the manner that I did because I always want to know specific-details as to how people have reached/concluded into their beliefs or if it was just something that they're pulling out of the cob-webs of memory (because for all I know everybody could be Spirit-Possessed™ with some discarnate-entity just parrotting off its own [but likely to be erroneous otherwise they wouldn't still be lingering around here on earth and inter-acting with the physical-realm/material-plane in such a manner] beliefs™).

Thanks for catching that, for I certainly wouldn't intentionally look for some straw-man, but there are still certain issues with the math & methodologies & formulas regarding the accuracy of the time-lines that are still not addressed to my satisfaction, similarly to Dr. Rupert Sheldrake's findings that the "Speed of Light" was published at different values, depending on which year the text-books were published. Although I am familiar with the "Carbon-Dating" method, I am still not entirely convinced of its accuracy, due to the fact that, just like a slight change in numbers for the speed-of-light, even slight changes in numbers/constants can affect the mathematical-formula-results when it comes to determining the "age" for any particualr phenomenon, and I'm not entirely convinced that all of the numbers used are necessarily accurate or correct, thus lending to the possibility/potential that, even though the Earth itself is most-certainly much older than 6000 years of age, the formula/calculations provided in the main-stream/conventional-teachings still somehow seem for some reason to be of a time-frame that turns out to be rather excessive, considering that human-technology™ seems to have advanced at a pace that seems extremely unnatural over the last 150 years and something just seems "off" to me that homo-sapiens could have existed for all of that 200K+ years and had remained "primitive" for such a long time-duration and then "suddenly" humans suddenly think that they're automatically the "top-of-the-food-chain-smartest-species" ever to have come into existence within all of the entire universe as-if though by random-chance whilst simultaneously having little to zero chance of ever having happened elsewhere within the Milky Way Galaxy or even the current Solar-System let alone the entire universe itself.

Look at the text of Genesis Ch1 and you'll find it hard to believe the writer wanted to say the earth was created in seven days. You can pass it off as the Hebrew style of poetry, but that wont do. You will see that the has repeated things on a later day.

That is the longest sentence ever!

It is mind boggling that humans could have wandered the earth for 190K years with essentially the same technology for hunting, cooking and making clothes. Then BAM! In the span of 10K years we go from that to where we are now. If we had gone at that pace for the previous 190K years, we'd be doing interstellar travel by now.

The turning point seems to have been agriculture. Apparently it is the 'wandering around' part that slows the development of technology. Once you have the starter technology (agriculture) to sit still, things and people start piling up.

Yeah, I guess that could be a bad habit of mine, but I'll keep my next response to shorter & more concise points...

All of that wandering around sure seems to be an insignificant factor to inhibiting the works of Pythagoras, Aristotle, Shakespeare, Sigmund Freud, Plato, the Babylonian Talmud, etc, from having such well-developed language-structure and very refined mathematical-formulas. From briefly looking into some of these works myself I see absolutely no reason why the "scientists/alchemists" from that time wouldn't be able to develop very rapid-advancing technology apart from the fact that "computers" were not a wide-spread tool for information-processing & mathematical-calculations until more recent-decades. The alignment of the pyramids to specific constellations, for example, and when they were actually built, etc., put many accounts of evolution-theory & its time-lines of certain things to question.

What are you talking about?

On the first page of the Bible "God said 'let there be light'....and the morning and the evening were the first day."

And then it clearly states that God goes on to create the Universe in five more steps, one step per day, and then he rests on the seventh day.

It was all done in one work week. There is no way around THAT.

Then you start counting the time durations of the events after creation in the Book, and you end up with about four millenia by the time Christ is born.


==========

However I think I see where you are coming from: I agree that you could argue that Genesis doesnt really conflict with the modern scientific view about the origin of homo sapiens. The Bible says that God fashioned the first man "out of mud".

According to modern science we evolved from non human primates, which in turn evolved from nonprimate mammals, who evolved from reptiles, and so on through fish....and it all traces back billions of years to the first cells that evolved from organic chemicals in the primordial ooze of the oceans (ie 'mud'). So...it comes down to the same thing! Science ALSO says we were "fashioned from mud"! The Bible just left out that little bit about the intermediate steps- and the four billion years between being mud and being human. And why NOT leave the middle of the story out when the book was written? It would have just confused God's Bronze Age audience! So there you have it!

Wandering around is a very significant factor. The reason those people could do what they did is because there was an infrastructure of civilization around them. Civilization allows for a level of specialization far beyond shaman/leader/tracker. It also allows things, people and information to concentrate and accumulate. None of those people could have done what they did without civilization around them.



They did develop very rapid advancing technology. Stonework and metalwork advanced at an amazing pace.

I think you are taking the 'lone genius' narratives of discovery too far. Individuals do have paradigm-shifting epiphanies but this doesn't happen in a vacuum. There needs to be a layering of prior ideas accesible to that individual.

nerdygirl has a point. I can imagine Hydrogen cooling down to the point where Iron is formed, and then Carbon but after that I find it difficult to understand things just happening without a pre-existing plan. If you argue things happen because they just had to happen then please explain. Many things can fall into place because of the phi number. So the phi number gives the only possible ratio for many things in science. The discrete nature of atomic structure means molecules can only form in certain ways. The complexity grows as nature evolves. Now consider how so many things in nature are interrelated. They depend on each other.

A lot of people here will will be more knowledgeable than me concerning the Laws Of Thermodynamics. If you believe String Theory I'd like to know the source of such energy if it is not God. There has to be a mind at work here.

Whilst neither Paul or John will likely have understood things the way it is possible today, they do seem to mostly have a firm grasp on what I have written here. Paul seems to have understood entropy and the part mankind plays in bringing the planet to a state of disorder. But there are apparently many things which mankind thinks it is best not to know.

My question wasn't that complicated. What caused the universe to exist? Creationists have put forth an idea for about 6,000 years, but I haven't heard from the anti-creationists. I guess that I still haven't.

Creationism is not the issue. It's Young Earth Creationism.

This is not an atheism vs theism thread. The battleline is between Young Earth Creationists on one side, and Old Earth (evolution accepting) 'creationists'(ie God believers), and non creationists (atheists) on the other.

By saying that you 'dont care about the age of the earth' you're implying that you're not a Biblical literalist YEC, and basically accept evolution (at least to a point). So its up to the Fundies to tell you why you SHOULD care about the age of the earth and should reject evolution. Not for atheists to argue atheism to you.

There might be a creator, but he didnt execute creation the way its described in the Bible.

But if you wanna start an atheism vs theism thread there are scientists who attack the problem of "why there is something rather than nothing" and who propose non theistic explanations. But like the idea of God these hypothesis are also rather untestable at this point in time.

The creation story is Sumarian. The creation of light, drawing land from the water. Their gods were natural forces, wind, rain, light. Ea, Entil, Enke, which must have done it in their godlike method.

The Bible credits the new local tribal god with doing it all.

Sumarians credit the Anunakki with making all things in their creation chamber for the first time. The Bible skips how all tools and domestic animals and grains were developed.

The Anunakki were mostly female, a fairly large group, The Bible has one male god.

Sumner was called The Land of Four Quarters. Sin the Moon Goddess, did decree every seventh day, full moon, dark of moon, and the half moons, to be a day of rest. 5,000 years later the Bible god claims he did that.

Sumarian stories date from before the Black Haired People were created, The Bible dates to around 1543 BC.

It is after people with weapons of iron and chariots hunted and drove the killer slaves all the way to Egypt.

Stolen stories and made up tribal gods aside, it is a reasonable history of the Black Haired People, their creation by the gods in 4004 BC, or 5800 years ago. Their nature is also shown by their created god who is wrathful, vengeful, angry, and commands they slaughter everyone they meet. Their god loves them as they are.

They say they were made out of mud. They say there were other creations before them. Egypt was not of their tribe. They are special because their god is a psychopath. Others want to work and produce, their god tells them to kill and steal.

The Bible is the story of a Paleolithic people raised to be slaves and grow grain. After doing that for thousands of years, they murder their teachers. They are driven out of The Land of Four Quarters, driven to Egypt, where growing grain has high status, but they are fed and assigned to making mud bricks. They kill the person who was feeding them.

Mt Thera blows up, a tidal wave wipes out the delta, the army goes to do relief work, The Black Haired People steal swords, rob houses, and declare themselves the gods of Egypt. Then someone tells them the army is coming back, and they flee into the wilderness. They hide out for forty years.

This is not the story of the creation of the Universe, or even Earth, it is the history of one tribe.

They were created by the gods, were rejected for just murdering everyone, by Sumaria, Baal, Egypt's gods, so they made up their own who approved of them, loved only them, and told them to kill everyone else.

Inventor, I will not even try to deny what you say here. However, Job and Jonah seem to paint different pictures entirely. We see how Jonah is so reluctant to go to Nineveh and preach repentance to those people. Job was apparently not a Hebrew. When the ten tribes were separated from Judah after Solomon's death they could no longer worship at Jerusalem so they set up a temple at Dan and Baal worship became their national religion. Sadly we see this same attitude that God can only be our God today, with JW's and many Christians who do not claim complete exclusivity but do as a small minority claim have be holders of the complete truth. As I see it the complete truth is not likely to be held by one body of people.

I think you mean Pi, not Phi, Pi being π or Π whilst Phi is φ or Φ. Also, I agree that existence cannot possibly be purposeless, and according to the documented research cases from "purveyors of woo-woo" sources, they have determined that life really does have a purpose, two main purposes:

* To learn as much as you can
* To learn to be able to love everybody and everything, unconditionally, no matter what, for whom & what they are

I also don't believe entirely in the so-called Laws of Thermodynamics due to what I know about Nikola Tesla & "suppressed/ignored" scientific-history. I do agree that some kind of "mind" is at work in our existence, but that the only thing about it that is consistent is the "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" Law unto itself. Sometimes called or referred to as what goes around comes around, a Karmic-System of Divine-Justice, You Reap What You Sow, everything that you cause others to experience will also be experienced by you, but IT decides when IT will choose to "return" those experiences upon its user, and therefore, due to our inability to "control" IT we may give such phenomenon such a name as God. Now feel free to see the Nikola Tesla and "zero-point" technologies & some of its histories for yourself in a well-structured documentary...

Man these forums sure get wonky a lot quite frequently...

Ban-Dodger, I meant 1.618 not Pi. Please do google Fibonacci numbers in nature and Fibonacci sequence atomic structure.

I use Bing instead of Google, and much can also be learned from You-Tube these days, and the "Phi ratio" appears to be a part of Sacred-Geometry, and I'm familiar with Sacred Geometry to an extent, although I hadn't really memorised/studied all of it in-depth. Partly due to its length of at least over an hour... although I should probably re-examine it more closely if I can force myself into allocating my time towards such learning instead of doing so many unnecessary errands (like doing dailies quests in computer-games)...

This may or may not be the original video that I saw but it was definitely about "Spirit-Science" and had that same cartoon-character doing all of the narrations...

Ban-Dodger I know nothing about sacred geometry.