Creationism is an insult to God.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Bahá’u’lláh confirms the scientists who claim, not six thousand, but millions and billions of years for the history of the earth’s creation. The evolution theory does not deny creative power.

Baha'u'llah had the advantage of many centuries of scientific progress between the authorship of Genesis and when he was writing. Personally, I don't consider it particularily astonishing when someone "prophecies" something that was simply the common view in his own time:

By the early 1800's it was generally accepted that the Earth had a long history. Its age, however, was scarcely settled. The uniformatarians (Hutton 1788, Lyell 1830) pictured the Earth as being indefinitely old.

The catastrophists (Cuvier 1812, de Beaumont 1852, Buckland 1836) accepted that the Earth was old; they disagreed with the kind of change and the rate of change that had occurred over that long history.

There was no single estimate of the Earth's age in the mid 1800's and no good way to arrive at one. There were various attempts to estimate the Earth's age, working back from sedimentation rates and other geophysical phenomena. The attempts produced estimates from about 100 million years up to several billion years.

Changing Views of the History of the Earth

Edit - it's hardly astonishing that Baha'u'llah would estimate a range of "millions to billions" of years for the history of the Earth (although I'm somewhat hesitant to call a range that covers four orders of magnitude an "estimate") - in his time, there was one side arguing that it should be millions and another side arguing that it was billions. It seems to me that he couched his position to allow for either side to be right.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Baha'u'llah had the advantage of many centuries of scientific progress between the authorship of Genesis and when he was writing. Personally, I don't consider it particularily astonishing when someone "prophecies" something that was simply the common view in his own time:

Well, I am not using this as an argument for proof of the Baha'i faith.


However the explanation that Baha'i scriptures have for creation is something unique, that was never mentioned in any religious or scientific books before the Baha'i faith.

It's a logical explanation that while explains that the World is created by God, at the same time it explains that evolution and creation do not reject each other.

Note that even today, mostly the followers of other religions reject the idea of evolution and insist that there was a time the world never existed.
I don't know if before Baha'u'llah anyone else had this explanation.

What would be interesting that Baha'u'llah and Abdulbaha didn't have any religious or scientific training (This requires careful investigation of history and fair judgment).

They had been in imprisonment and exile for at least 40 years.
So, considering that, then to me it would be astonishing.

Edit - it's hardly astonishing that Baha'u'llah would estimate a range of "millions to billions" of years for the history of the Earth (although I'm somewhat hesitant to call a range that covers four orders of magnitude an "estimate") - in his time, there was one side arguing that it should be millions and another side arguing that it was billions. It seems to me that he couched his position to allow for either side to be right.

These are some quotes from Baha'i scriptures:


"....we have before proved by argument that life on this earth is very ancient. It is not one hundred thousand, or two hundred thousand, or one million or two million years old; it is very ancient, and the ancient records and traces are entirely obliterated. "

"the species existing on this earth are phenomenal, for it is established that there was a time when these species did not exist on the surface of the earth. Moreover, the earth has not always existed, but the world of existence has always been, for the universe is not limited to this terrestrial globe." Abdul'Baha - Some answered Questions


This is was the Baha'i view while at that time, I think the religious people still believed and insisted that the earth was a few thousands years old.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Well, I am not using this as an argument for proof of the Baha'i faith....

Remember the OP?

Creationism and literal interpretations of the Torah as 'facts' seem to belittle God's creative abilities.

If you wish to advocate Baha'i scripture as "scientifically accurate", please start a thread.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Creationism and literal interpretations of the Torah as 'facts' seem to belittle God's creative abilities.

I agree. also, literal interpretations of the story of Adam and Eve and the garden, would not sound logical.

"If we take this story in its apparent meaning, according to the interpretation of the masses, it is indeed extraordinary. The intelligence cannot accept it, affirm it, or imagine it; for such arrangements, such details, such speeches and reproaches are far from being those of an intelligent man, how much less of the Divinity—that Divinity Who has organized this infinite universe in the most perfect form, and its innumerable inhabitants with absolute system, strength and perfection.
We must reflect a little: if the literal meaning of this story were attributed to a wise man, certainly all would logically deny that this arrangement, this invention, could have emanated from an intelligent being. Therefore, this story of Adam and Eve who ate from the tree, and their expulsion from Paradise, must be thought of simply as a symbol. It contains divine mysteries and universal meanings, and it is capable of marvelous explanations. Only those who are initiated into mysteries, and those who are near the Court of the All-Powerful, are aware of these secrets. Hence these verses of the Bible have numerous meanings." Abdulbaha- Some Answered Questions

 

[wilsoncole]

Silly MiniB,

I am not angry at anyone.
I do, however, find intentional ignorance to be an affront to reason and to any concept of God one might have.

By this token, are you, therefore, the very personification of reason?
Reason does not object to people's beliefs, but you do.
"Who are you to judge the house servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls..　.　." (Romans 14:4)

 

[wilsoncole]

Is that guy really banned? I was just... you know. Can't stand this stuff sometimes, but this particular OP; just like the title says... it is an insult. "Evolution ain't in the Bible," the heck is that all about? What is Ecclesiastes 3:19 on about, then? Since the Bible clearly forbids the mixing of kinds, seems to me any Creationist who eats chicken or has a dog does not have a leg to stand on. The Biblical evidence against Creationism, in my not-so-humble opinion, is overwhelming.

There is no such thing as "creationism!"
That is a derogatory label attached to the belief in creation.
Creation is not a theory nor a philosophy.
That being said, would you mind explaining the "overwhelming" Biblical evidence against creation?

 

[wilsoncole]

Because the people who wrote those books were ignorant of the concept of evolution.

They were not! The concept is found in ancient Greek philosophy.

The effect of belief in evolution?
It's goal is to diminished the Bible’s authority in the minds of many. As an article in Harvard Magazine put it, the Bible was now seen as no more than "a lovely allegory." The impact on morality was devastating. Evolution became what well-known scientist Fred Hoyle called "an open charter for any form of opportunistic behaviour."
So what we have now is a moral wasteland! Evolutionists are unable to tell what is moral and what is not; what is right from what is wrong; what is acceptable behavior and what is not.

"Little wonder, then, that many people have no moral reference point. They are adrift like a ship without a rudder. Many, for example, ride the popular current of moral relativism, the view that "ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them." According to this philosophy, there are no moral absolutes—everything is relative. ‘What’s wrong for you may be right for somebody else,’ relativists assert. Because their moral compass points in just about any direction, they are quick to validate virtually any sort of behavior as acceptable.
Thus, an act that formerly would have been described as "sinful" or "wrong" is now simply "stupid." The action may be excused as being "sick" but not condemned as "immoral."

One is reminded of the days of the ancient prophet Isaiah when there were those "saying that good is bad and bad is good, .　.　. putting darkness for light and light for darkness."—Isaiah 5:20." (AW 93 8/8 p. 5)

Evolution is a hoax!

 

[outhouse]

There is no such thing as "creationism!"

Yes there is. Its the belief in a magical man who for billions of year sat around doing nothing, then one day he thought "hey ill create earth and man, ill give them a book so confusing people will argue about it forever"

in my opinion.

That is a derogatory label

I dont think so, are you ashamed of your belief?

It's goal is to diminished the Bible’s authority in the minds of many

wrong, wrong, wrong.

Science doesnt care about you or your book or any other religious books or religions. That is not there goal nor has it ever been a goal. Your religion tears itself down on its own merit, in my opinion.

"Little wonder, then, that many people have no moral reference point.

you mean a reference point like priest raping litle boys? or christians murdering abortion doctors? Or references of how christians wiped out incans for the greed of the church??? and the myans??

OR How about how they poisoned the minds of young children in public schools before creation was outlawed??????????????????????????

Sir evolution is not up for debate, its been over a long time.

 

[painted wolf]

They were not! The concept is found in ancient Greek philosophy.

I thought the bible was older than the Greeks?

The effect of belief in evolution?
It's goal is to diminished the Bible’s authority in the minds of many. As an article in Harvard Magazine put it, the Bible was now seen as no more than "a lovely allegory." The impact on morality was devastating. Evolution became what well-known scientist Fred Hoyle called "an open charter for any form of opportunistic behaviour."
So what we have now is a moral wasteland! Evolutionists are unable to tell what is moral and what is not; what is right from what is wrong; what is acceptable behavior and what is not.

"Little wonder, then, that many people have no moral reference point. They are adrift like a ship without a rudder. Many, for example, ride the popular current of moral relativism, the view that "ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them." According to this philosophy, there are no moral absolutes—everything is relative. ‘What’s wrong for you may be right for somebody else,’ relativists assert. Because their moral compass points in just about any direction, they are quick to validate virtually any sort of behavior as acceptable.
Thus, an act that formerly would have been described as "sinful" or "wrong" is now simply "stupid." The action may be excused as being "sick" but not condemned as "immoral."

One is reminded of the days of the ancient prophet Isaiah when there were those "saying that good is bad and bad is good, .　.　. putting darkness for light and light for darkness."—Isaiah 5:20." (AW 93 8/8 p. 5)

Yes, that is why so many key evolution defenders Christians?
Why am I a theist?

Evolution is a hoax!

Really... you don't think that your children will be a little different than you are? You don't think dogs and wolves are related... or even Yorkies and Poodles?

Evolution is simply a change in a populations genetics over time.

wa:do

 

[ellenjanuary]

There is no such thing as "creationism!"
That is a derogatory label attached to the belief in creation.
Creation is not a theory nor a philosophy.
That being said, would you mind explaining the "overwhelming" Biblical evidence against creation?

...against Creationism, was the statement.

 

[ellenjanuary]

The effect of belief in evolution?
It's goal is to diminished the Bible’s authority in the minds of many. As an article in Harvard Magazine put it, the Bible was now seen as no more than "a lovely allegory." The impact on morality was devastating. Evolution became what well-known scientist Fred Hoyle called "an open charter for any form of opportunistic behaviour."
So what we have now is a moral wasteland! Evolutionists are unable to tell what is moral and what is not; what is right from what is wrong; what is acceptable behavior and what is not.

The associative property in action: if a=b, and b=c; then a=c. In this case, a=the above belief. Which is nonsense. The problem with mathematics is that if a false axiom is considered true, then an entire structure can be built upon it, and tested as true.
So, a person who believes a, above; is? Beyond hope? Needing to be shot? I don't know, wc. I recommend education.

 

[wilsoncole]

Yes there is. Its the belief in a magical man who for billions of year sat around doing nothing, then one day he thought "hey ill create earth and man, ill give them a book so confusing people will argue about it forever"
in my opinion.
I dont think so, are you ashamed of your belief?
wrong, wrong, wrong.

Science doesnt care about you or your book or any other religious books or religions. That is not there goal nor has it ever been a goal. Your religion tears itself down on its own merit, in my opinion.
you mean a reference point like priest raping litle boys? or christians murdering abortion doctors? Or references of how christians wiped out incans for the greed of the church??? and the myans??

OR How about how they poisoned the minds of young children in public schools before creation was outlawed??????????????????????????

Sir evolution is not up for debate, its been over a long time.

Sir,
You should talk to people more politely. And you shouldn't indulge in insults either. Why?
Your spelling and your grammar tells a lot about you.

I see no need to respond to silliness.

 

[outhouse]

Sir,
You should talk to people more politely. And you shouldn't indulge in insults either. Why?
Your spelling and your grammar tells a lot about you.

I see no need to respond to silliness.

You find the truth insulting?

This is a open forum and i type fast while at work, i didnt know it was a spelling bee? or a grammer class?

 

[wilsoncole]

The associative property in action: if a=b, and b=c; then a=c. In this case, a=the above belief. Which is nonsense. The problem with mathematics is that if a false axiom is considered true, then an entire structure can be built upon it, and tested as true.
So, a person who believes a, above; is? Beyond hope? Needing to be shot? I don't know, wc. I recommend education.

A dance around the truth. Education does not create nor enhance morality!
Consider this statement again:
"So what we have now is a moral wasteland! Evolutionists are unable to tell what is moral and what is not; what is right from what is wrong; what is acceptable behavior and what is not."
I sure would love to see you disprove that!

 

[ellenjanuary]

Education does not create nor enhance morality!

So, you were born knowing scripture? You were not educated in the Bible?

 

[painted wolf]

A dance around the truth. Education does not create nor enhance morality!
Consider this statement again:
"So what we have now is a moral wasteland! Evolutionists are unable to tell what is moral and what is not; what is right from what is wrong; what is acceptable behavior and what is not."
I sure would love to see you disprove that!

Physicists can't tell you what is or is not moral either... does that make physics wrong?

Chemistry, geology and on and on are all wrong because they don't tell you what is moral?

wa:do

 

[tumbleweed41]

A dance around the truth. Education does not create nor enhance morality!
Consider this statement again:
"So what we have now is a moral wasteland! Evolutionists are unable to tell what is moral and what is not; what is right from what is wrong; what is acceptable behavior and what is not."
I sure would love to see you disprove that!

What a ridiculous statement. Biological evolution does not deal with ethical behavior. This is like condemning Euclidean geometry because it cannot tell us what is ethically right and wrong.
You are also assuming that all 'evolutionists' are atheists. This in itself is a gross exaggeration and does not fit the actual facts. There is an abundance of rational Christians, Hindus, Muslims, etc who have no problem with the overwhelming empirical evidence supporting biological evolution.

Morality is an issue for sociology, philosophy, anthropology, and yes, even theology. But not biological evolution.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

The effect of belief in evolution?

I sense an appeal to consequences coming...

It's goal is to diminished the Bible’s authority in the minds of many.

The impact on morality was devastating. Evolution became what well-known scientist Fred Hoyle called "an open charter for any form of opportunistic behaviour."

So what we have now is a moral wasteland! Evolutionists are unable to tell what is moral and what is not; what is right from what is wrong; what is acceptable behavior and what is not.

And here's the kicker, even if a word of what you wrote above is true (none of it is but let's run with it anyway), even if the Theory of Evolution somehow made anyone and everyone who accepted it inherently immoral, that would have absolutely no bearing on whether or not the Theory of Evolution was true.

This old chestnut is called the "appeal to consequences". It's a form of an emotional appeal and it's a jewel of a logical fallacy. The short hand is thus:

If X is true, then Y will occur.
Y is bad.
therefore, X if false.

The problem with the appeal to consequences is that it in no way addresses whether the original claim is true or false. It simply states that the consequences of the claim being true/false are positive/negative which is, essentially, meaningless.

Evolution is a hoax!

Prove it.

 

[Nothing]

Creationism and literal interpretations of the Torah as 'facts' seem to belittle God's creative abilities.
As if God were unable to proscribe physical laws and natural processes, and instead had to constantly interfere with and fix His own creation with Law breaking 'miracles' to get the results He wanted.
The need to interfere with His own creation shows a gross incompetence on the Designers part.
The Creationists appeal to ignorance is an even bigger slap in the face to God.
Questioning and denying the very natural Laws that God put into place in order to justify their acceptance of the creation myths written by men a little over 2300 years ago.
Putting their faith in mans written word rather than God's own creative masterpiece all around them.
The word of God is written in every decaying atom, every light particle, every fossilized remain, our very own genetic code.
God's true priests are the physicists, geologists, biologists, astrophysicists, cosmologists and other research scientists who constantly strive to find out the how and why of the universe.
They do not have to believe in God. They just have to believe in the empirical evidence they find.

I think you make a good point tumbleweed, unfortunately you have made the boring (yawn) mistake that almost everyone else does in here. You have declared your opinion right at the expense of others being wrong. Science is logical and creationism is not, as you put it. I doubt most creationists would believe that the word of God is not written in every atom, light particle, fossilized remain and genetic code. There are on the other hand many scientists who do not believe in God. Too many conflicting minds. Truth will be recognized when minds move beyond the conflict. Creationists and scientists must work together and look objectively upon both scientific research and holy books. When syncronized for the common good, the whole is greater then the sum of its parts. When it is out of sync, the whole is far less.

 

[Sunburned]

Creationists and scientists must work together and look objectively upon both scientific research and holy books.

So far the work I have seen from creationists hasn't impressed me and I doubt they would have much to offer scientists in their own fields. Unless they have made huge leaps in the last ten years...