Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

How do creationist explain fossil fuels?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 7>
Author
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: How do creationist explain fossil fuels?
    Posted: 15-Nov-2008 at 17:06
Originally posted by Menumorut

The only argument is the common sense. The evolutionism is absurd.
I do not find it absurd, nor many other people. Whose common sense?
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810
  Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Nov-2008 at 17:36
Hello Menu
 
What you said pretty much sums it all up. Many Scholars think, and this was well before recent discoveries, that the earth was old and that humans are just the latest and last in a series of inhabitants. Based on this the existance of dinasaurs, evolution of species, except humans, are accepted by some scholars and they don't contest the data that put earth's age at 4 billion.
 
AL-Jassas
Back to Top
Yiannis View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2329
  Quote Yiannis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Nov-2008 at 17:45
Come on everyone, this discussion is a joke by default. One cannot argue because the creationists' beliefs are based on faith and the evolutionists are based on science.
 
I'm sure the Pope had also many theologists/wanna-be-scientists who had "valid" arguments that earth is actually the center of the universe (or even flat) when he condemned Galileo.
 
Problem only arises when some moron politicians want to appease ridiculous beliefs of the evangelists for the sake of votes.
The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics

Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
Back to Top
Jams View Drop Down
Consul
Consul

Suspended

Joined: 06-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 365
  Quote Jams Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Nov-2008 at 19:12

But this thread is not about evolution.

 

YEC's belief in a young earth is based on a mere interpretation of the bible - a literal interpretation of the lineages etc. BUT, the bible, or the old testament was written down long after the fact after a long period of oral tradition. Who is to say that the writers were infallible?

Is this really a good basis for concluding with absolute certainty that the world is only 6000 years or so old, which goes against all evidence, all science and all knowledge?

In order to function, the idea requires certain explanations, like the one mentioned about it being an illusion created by God, and those explanations are NOT in the bible, if the bible is supposed to be taken literally.

I think that it is inconsistent.
Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423
  Quote Menumorut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Nov-2008 at 19:35

Originally posted by Al Jassas


What you said pretty much sums it all up. Many Scholars think, and this was well before recent discoveries, that the earth was old and that humans are just the latest and last in a series of inhabitants. Based on this the existance of dinasaurs, evolution of species, except humans, are accepted by some scholars and they don't contest the data that put earth's age at 4 billion.


As one who accept the existence of God you should understand that any being with the exception of God has a relative existence. Nothing of the creatures exist if God would cease to exist, I mean He is keeping everything in existence, the mattery doesn't exist autonomously.

So, again, God has not why to wait 4 billion years to create humans. He is outside time.


......

Jams, I'm not grounding my belief on Bible but on common sense. I consider the Bible a useful book, inspired by God, but not a real description about how God created world. I think God created the world for men, so earth's age coincides with human history.







Edited by Menumorut - 15-Nov-2008 at 19:59

Back to Top
Jams View Drop Down
Consul
Consul

Suspended

Joined: 06-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 365
  Quote Jams Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Nov-2008 at 19:57
Ok, that's fair enough, but how old do you think the world is then?
Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423
  Quote Menumorut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Nov-2008 at 20:02
As I said, some thousands years, when the first civilisations appeared.

Back to Top
Jams View Drop Down
Consul
Consul

Suspended

Joined: 06-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 365
  Quote Jams Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Nov-2008 at 20:56
So the world started with civilizations right of the bat?
Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423
  Quote Menumorut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Nov-2008 at 21:52
Not that I wanted to say, but that some thousands years BC is the time the world was created.

Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Nov-2008 at 22:17
Originally posted by Yiannis

I'm sure the Pope had also many theologists/wanna-be-scientists who had "valid" arguments that earth is actually the center of the universe (or even flat) when he condemned Galileo.
The fun part about religious vs anti-religious people is that the latter are similarly irrational and faith-based
 
1) science - as we know the term today - was pionieered by those "theologists/wanna-be-scientists" (Roger Bacon, Isaac Newton, etc.)
2) most medieval cosmologies actually held the Earth to be round (spherical, more exactly), following geocentrism and the ancient tradition of perfect forms
3) though Catholic Church was conservative and intolerant to ideas directly conflicting with the common beliefs held in consonance with the Bible and Aristotelism, there was much more to condamnations like Galileo's. For instance, he was asked to present a balanced view of both theories (though there were several other alternatives at that time like Tycho Brahe's), however he rather built a satyrical account of geocentrism, fact which of course irritated the powerful Catholic Church. Was he to mock a king, he would have lost his head.
 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2008 at 06:23
I am religious and I believe in evolution, and also that religion is completely compatible with science. Not the only one who thinks so either. Not so good to be on either extreme in my opinion. Sure people who think the earth was made in six days are irrational and people who think that all religious people are irrational is itself irrational.

Islamic scientists who were religious by all means as well made great progress in science. As have Christian counterparts as Chilbudios pointed out. No reason to attack faith for people who are unable to comprehend metaphor.



Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2008 at 06:24
Originally posted by Menumorut

Not that I wanted to say, but that some thousands years BC is the time the world was created.


That is the most asinine thing you said, yet.
Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423
  Quote Menumorut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2008 at 06:46
As long you not bring arguments you have no weight.


So how exactly did God create men? What is about evolution in Quran?

Back to Top
Beylerbeyi View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Cuba
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1355
  Quote Beylerbeyi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2008 at 12:06
The fun part about religious vs anti-religious people is that the latter are similarly irrational and faith-based


I am not sure what you mean by this, but if you are claiming that science (evolution, geology) and religion (creationism, young earth nonsense) are both wrong, and the truth lies somewhere between the two, that is just post-modernist 'truth is relative, it is a social construct' bullocks.

Truth is in science, religion is full of crap. If this hurts your feelings, I am sorry, you'll just have to live with it.

1) science - as we know the term today - was pionieered by those "theologists/wanna-be-scientists" (Roger Bacon, Isaac Newton, etc.)


So? There was no secular tradition. You can not honestly expect a 'natural philosopher'  to create a whole social order by himself. When the choice existed in history, scientists became overwhelmingly secular, if not outright atheist. They were also among the people who created the secular tradition, but this is a task above one persons scope.

2) most medieval cosmologies actually held the Earth to be round (spherical, more exactly), following geocentrism and the ancient tradition of perfect forms


Again, so what?

3) though Catholic Church was conservative and intolerant to ideas directly conflicting with the common beliefs held in consonance with the Bible and Aristotelism, there was much more to condamnations like Galileo's. For instance, he was asked to present a balanced view of both theories (though there were several other alternatives at that time like Tycho Brahe's), however he rather built a satyrical account of geocentrism, fact which of course irritated the powerful Catholic Church. Was he to mock a king, he would have lost his head.


Why should Galileo teach lies, when he knew the truth? He was lucky anyway. There were many before and after him who got killed because they taught the truth. What about Giordano Bruno?
Back to Top
Jams View Drop Down
Consul
Consul

Suspended

Joined: 06-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 365
  Quote Jams Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2008 at 12:19

I don't think people were killed because of religion as such. They were killed because they somehow questioned certain dogma that was the basis for the power of the church back then. If people question some of it, others may question all of it, and the church may lose its power. So it was more of a conflict of influence and power than a straight religious conflict.

Anyone that threatened the powers was silenced.
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2008 at 14:31
Originally posted by Beylerbeyi

I am not sure what you mean by this, but if you are claiming that science (evolution, geology) and religion (creationism, young earth nonsense) are both wrong, and the truth lies somewhere between the two, that is just post-modernist 'truth is relative, it is a social construct' bullocks.

Truth is in science, religion is full of crap. If this hurts your feelings, I am sorry, you'll just have to live with it.
If you're not sure what do I mean by that you could a) read the post I replied to b) ask me.
If you like to speculate ad hominem, allow me to reply in the same manner: you seem to be part of those people believing in Science.
But science is not so much about truth, rather about verifiability. A lot of scientific theories proved to be false, so what, we correct them or replace them and we move on.
 
Yes, truth is relative and that does not come from post-modernists, but from physicists and mathematicians. Anyone with brains and education should know that his truths are relative to his premises.
 
So? There was no secular tradition. You can not honestly expect a 'natural philosopher'  to create a whole social order by himself.
Social order? Do I smell Marxism? LOL
 
When the choice existed in history, scientists became overwhelmingly secular, if not outright atheist. They were also among the people who created the secular tradition, but this is a task above one persons scope.
Ancient Greeks had the choice to be atheists, yet most of them weren't. This "have-to-become-atheist" sounds so teleological, so millenaristic. And you wonder why I find the anti-religious camp funny.
 
Again, so what?
Why don't you re-read my post and the post I replied to? 
 
However, from someone preaching Truth, that sounds quite hypocritical. Or the Truth that the Christians weren't that stupid as often imagined is not a convenient one?
 
Why should Galileo teach lies, when he knew the truth?
Galileo, for instance, claimed that the tides were provoked by the rotation of Earth on its axis (some speculate that his devotion to the Copernican model was also to promote his theory of tides), a claim, which at least according to what we know today, is false. Yet he fought for it against the scholars and theologians of his time, and also suffered for it.
 
 He was lucky anyway. There were many before and after him who got killed because they taught the truth. What about Giordano Bruno?
Bruno taught ideas promoted by others before him without getting killed (for instance Nicolaus Cusanus, from whose work Bruno actually got many of his ideas) and of course many arguably false ideas (he was a mystic after all, most of his ideas weren't backed up by any sort of empirical evidence).
 
I already said it, the intellectual climate was certainly intolerant and harsh in 16-17th century Italy, but that doesn't give us the excuse to invent martyrdoms and saints.
 
 


Edited by Chilbudios - 16-Nov-2008 at 14:44
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2008 at 22:27
Originally posted by Menumorut

As long you not bring arguments you have no weight.


So how exactly did God create men? What is about evolution in Quran?


The Quran mentions the big bang and the consequent creation of the Universe as well as the evolution that produced us human beings. thus God is the agent of the creation with the big bang.


If you don't believe in Physical laws take a leap from a skyscraper spread those conspiracy wings and fly. that is of course if it were true rather than delusion.

Why would I be the one requiring evidence when you are upsetting centuries of acquired knowledge, generally when someone explains a theory of such magnitude they should provide ample proof aside from wishful thinking and a youtube link.
Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423
  Quote Menumorut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2008 at 22:40
Could you give the verses?

About jumping from top of buildings: is not good, you force God to make a miracle. You may know the Temptation episode.


The last phrase is not dialogual.



Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2008 at 22:58
Originally posted by Menumorut

About jumping from top of buildings: is not good, you force God to make a miracle. You may know the Temptation episode.
But why miracle? Maybe because you believe that normally you'd fall (gravity or divine will, whatever, but you fall), that the simulation you denounced earlier is eventually contained by some rules, by some laws, then what's wrong with finding these rules (and ignoring the brain-in-a-vat scenarios)? And now, let's say that some people in search for rules reached this theory about the evolution of life (evolution, not origin!) and they called it evolutionism. I don't see what's wrong in that or how your arguments, as presented until now, will make you believe their theory is wrong and yours (a flavor of creationism I guess) is right.
Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423
  Quote Menumorut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2008 at 23:16
Chilb, you are messing my words. I didn't say natural laws doesn't work but they are not intrinsic to mattery. So, if you jump from a building you may get crushed or stay untouched, depend of God's will.

About evolution theory. If you accept God as a rational and alive Bening is senseless to think that He need to produce some species from others. He creates OUT OF NOTHING. So, even He would decide to make animals and plants species evoluate from other species, it will be no more than an appeareance.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 7>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.