An unreasonable debate...

[Sir_Loin]

People today use the term day in reference to periods other than 24 hours. "In my day, we didn't have the Internet." So does the Bible. For example, Genesis 2:4 states: "This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven." Thus, the entire creative period is spoken of as a single day. The creative days are spoken of as an evening and a morning, not as a 24-hour period. (Genesis 1:4) I believe this indicates these periods lasted at least thousands of years, if not longer. The seventh "day" in Genesis is spoken of later in the Scriptures as continuing and ongoing, thousands of years after it's start. (Hebrews 4:3-9)

The teaching that God created the universe in six 24-hour days is unscriptural, or that God created the universe six to ten thousand years ago.

People today use the term day in reference to periods other than 24 hours. "In my day, we didn't have the Internet." So does the Bible.

Wait, hold up. Where in the hell does it say that? Genesis 1:5 says: (courtesy of biblegateway.com) God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day. There you go, the definition of day as used in the bible.

in the day[/U][/B] that Jehovah God made earth and heaven." Thus, the entire creative period is spoken of as a single day.

Nope. The entire creative period isn't spoken of as a single day- where did you get this from? Can you not read? The day God made earth and heaven is what is spoken in this verse... not what God made completely..

The creative days are spoken of as an evening and a morning, not as a 24-hour period. (Genesis 1:4) I believe this indicates these periods lasted at least thousands of years, if not longer.

The logical way of thinking would be to think that it was a 24-hour period. Granted, it doesn't say the definition of a day exactly in the Bible, but by saying thousands of years is hypocritical.
You do realize that the Bible isn't a diary? It's not like God was writing Genesis with a magical pen whilst he was creating it? It was written by a human. And a human interpretation of a day is a 24-hour cycle.

The seventh "day" in Genesis is spoken of later in the Scriptures as continuing and ongoing, thousands of years after it's start.

Reading that piece of the Bible, I don't see it saying exactly what you're saying here...

The teaching that God created the universe in six 24-hour days is unscriptural, or that God created the universe six to ten thousand years ago.

It is unscriptural. But so is your statement because it doesn't say in the Scriptures exactly what the dates are. So anyone making any speculation about how old the earth is is hypocritical.

 

[Sir_Loin]

First you will need to define "soul" in a meaningful and useful way.
Then you will need to show that this "soul" actually exists.

Then we can get into where it came from.

I would say that the soul is the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part.

When was it "established" the universe was created?

I don't believe I said that. I only said that the universe did not create itself..

 

[Looncall]

Sir_Loin has certainly been conned.
But I would not call him a villain.

Nor would I, indeed. I suppose that Sir_Loin has been misled by dishonest persons.

 

[Looncall]

How does it not? The First Law of Thermodynamics encompasses several principles one of them being the law of conservation of energy.

This states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. However, energy can change forms, and energy can flow from one place to another. The total energy of an isolated system does not change.

"Energy can neither be created nor destroyed", therefore the universe could not have created itself, correct?

EDIT: I know, I know, Evolution is a biological process and I'm talking about origins, but just think about it this way.
We have established that the universe could not have created itself- that's absurd. So, the only other alternative would be a God. (Which also doesn't make sense, but to me makes more sense than a "Big Bang". If the only other alternative is a "God" then the Bible would be correct and Evolution could not have taken place.

P.S: I'm not denying Evolution, in fact, I believe that creatures adapt to their environment, but I don't agree with the claims of one-celled beings evolving into clever, "soul-containing", humans that we are.
Which brings up another question- what about a human's soul? Where could that have possibly come from?"

I gather that the sum of energy of the universe is likely zero.

If one does not know how the universe began, it adds nothing to add imaginary gods without evidence.

What evidence do you have that we could not have evolved? Or, is your position just superstitious prejudice?

I consider the notion of souls to be an ancient error of thinking that has unfortunately persisted to the present.

 

[McBell]

We have established that the universe could not have created itself- that's absurd. So, the only other alternative would be a God.

When was it "established" the universe was created?

I don't believe I said that. I only said that the universe did not create itself..

Then perhaps you should reword what you said above for clarification..?

 

[Parsimony]

How does it not? The First Law of Thermodynamics encompasses several principles one of them being the law of conservation of energy.

This states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. However, energy can change forms, and energy can flow from one place to another. The total energy of an isolated system does not change.

"Energy can neither be created nor destroyed", therefore the universe could not have created itself, correct?

EDIT: I know, I know, Evolution is a biological process and I'm talking about origins, but just think about it this way.
We have established that the universe could not have created itself- that's absurd. So, the only other alternative would be a God. (Which also doesn't make sense, but to me makes more sense than a "Big Bang". If the only other alternative is a "God" then the Bible would be correct and Evolution could not have taken place.

False dilemma. If a god is required, it does not necessarily have to be the one of the Bible. A deist god could do the job as well. The Biblical God could also still have created the Universe while then using evolution to bring about the diversity of life.

 

[Sir_Loin]

I consider the notion of souls to be an ancient error of thinking that has unfortunately persisted to the present.

=_= I'm not sure why you would even think of posting that.
Elaborate.

The Biblical God could also still have created the Universe while then using evolution to bring about the diversity of life.

If you go back to one of my posts, you will see why this isn't possible..

 

[Parsimony]

If you go back to one of my posts, you will see why this isn't possible..

And which one is that?

 

[McBell]

If you go back to one of my posts, you will see why this isn't possible..

I seriously hope you do not think that post six explains any such thing.....:no:

Cause it doesn't.

 

[Sir_Loin]

I seriously hope you do not think that post six explains any such thing.....:no:

Cause it doesn't.

And why does it not? I would like for you to explain to me how that post doesn't explain anything. Because it does.

 

[Alceste]

I disagree. These forums educate people
Also, I don't know of a bigger alternative to Evolution as Creationism.

perhaps open the field to more interesting debates relating to biology.

You would have created a Ghost Town of a forum..

(in my opinion, of course)


EDIT: Just changed thread title

I don't think so. We get a pretty steady stream of creationists in here that want to start threads denying evolution - they'll find the evolution forum just as easily without the name of the sub forum suggesting there is any doubt in the scientific community that evolution is true, and without suggesting that creationism and evolution are on equal footing.

 

[outhouse]

Creationism combats Evolution not by using evidence, but by using counter-evidence and finding a way to fault The Theory, that is, evolution.

EDIT: The strongest piece of evidence against Evolution have to be the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Because creationist don't have any evidence at all.


It is hard to squeeze evidence out of mythology.

 

[outhouse]

So your position is that anyone who challenges the ToE, for whatever evidential reason, is "religiously motivated to further their non-scientific agenda"? Is that what you are saying?

Pretty much.

For the most part, the religious are the ones that have issues with it.

 

[outhouse]

We have established that the universe could not have created itself- that's absurd.

How could that even be correct????


How can mythology create a universe?

 

[Looncall]

=_= I'm not sure why you would even think of posting that.
Elaborate.



If you go back to one of my posts, you will see why this isn't possible..

Concerning souls:

To people living in ignorance, as everyone did until quite recently, it makes sense to ask questions such as "Where does the fire go when the fuel runs out?". To moderns who understand the nature of fire, fire is clearly a process, not a substance, and that question is just as clearly bogus.

Similarly, such people, lacking knowledge about how living organisms work, would be understandably apt to consider life to be a substance instead of the process that we now realize that it is. I gather that this kind of error is called reification: treating something as a substance when it is not.

Given this notion of a life substance (soul), all kinds of elaborations become possible, such as an afterlife and souls without bodies (gods, ghosts, demons etc).

This notion of a soul also provides shamans, clerics, popes etc with a handy tool for gaining power over people, and complex institutions and theologies are constructed to enforce that power. It is not even necessary for the perpetrators of these to realize that they based on an error of thinking, and so it rolls along, like a chain letter.

And all this is possible without souls having any reality at all.

 

[McBell]

Perhaps. But the problem with this is that if Creationists believed this they would no longer be Creationists. Because I'm sure that in the Bible it says that God created the world in 5 days (or was it 6 or 7?), and evolution happens over an extremely long period of time.
So yeah, they are incompatible

Is it safe to assume to that your claim is that evolution is incompatible with creation because six "days" is not enough time for evolution to have happened?

If so, then you have the burden of proof showing that one day is the short amount of time you claim it is.

 

[ChristineES]

I disagree. These forums educate people
Also, I don't know of a bigger alternative to Evolution as Creationism.

perhaps open the field to more interesting debates relating to biology.

You would have created a Ghost Town of a forum..

(in my opinion, of course)


EDIT: Just changed thread title

I agree, they can learn somewhat from a forum. I learned about evolution, or at least an overview back in high school. That was quite some time ago and I am pretty shaky about remembering all the terms and whatever. They didn't get into the nitty-gritty details, as well. Even back then I accepted some of what they taught, while other things seemed rather far-fetched. Mind you, I was agnostic in high school and not a theist like I am now, so that fact isn't the reason they seemed far-fetched to me. It could be because they didn't really explain very well. I'd like to actually speak with some of the scientists who did the actual research and experimentation. I don't learn much, however, from the forum about it.

The debate between evolution and creation is rather fruitless, at best. But, I think a person can actually believe in both, as far-fetched as that might sound.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Perhaps. But the problem with this is that if Creationists believed this they would no longer be Creationists. Because I'm sure that in the Bible it says that God created the world in 5 days (or was it 6 or 7?), and evolution happens over an extremely long period of time.
So yeah, they are incompatible

The Bible also says that plants were created before the Sun, and that sea animals were created after land plants (they weren't).

 

[Alceste]

I agree, they can learn somewhat from a forum. I learned about evolution, or at least an overview back in high school. That was quite some time ago and I am pretty shaky about remembering all the terms and whatever. They didn't get into the nitty-gritty details, as well. Even back then I accepted some of what they taught, while other things seemed rather far-fetched. Mind you, I was agnostic in high school and not a theist like I am now, so that fact isn't the reason they seemed far-fetched to me. It could be because they didn't really explain very well. I'd like to actually speak with some of the scientists who did the actual research and experimentation. I don't learn much, however, from the forum about it.

The debate between evolution and creation is rather fruitless, at best. But, I think a person can actually believe in both, as far-fetched as that might sound.

Doesn't sound far fetched to me. Any form of faith that cannot adapt itself to the integration of new information is less than worthless, IMO. I have no problem with people who believe in guided evolution. They are not flatly denying the facts, and are usually capable of discussing the subject amicably, with a decent amount of fascination and curiosity about the wonder of it all.

 

[McBell]

Perhaps. But the problem with this is that if Creationists believed this they would no longer be Creationists. Because I'm sure that in the Bible it says that God created the world in 5 days (or was it 6 or 7?), and evolution happens over an extremely long period of time.
So yeah, they are incompatible

2 Peter 3:8
Psalm 90:4