Do creationists have anything new?

[arthra]

Ok I'm kind of confused are you saying you are a creationist? Its confusing to me because it seems that most Creationists here are Christians who like to use their proof as proof for their religion to convert people with too.Guess there are other religions who are creationsist just not use to reading their post.Thanks for the post I always think your posts are interesting.

Thanks for your post! I think our view of "creation" may not be as say as doctrinaire as past views on the subject and we are not defending say how people may have viewed creation in the past... there's a bit of agnosticism about it ...

"Now concerning the Essence of Divinity: in truth it is on no account determined by anything apart from its own nature, and can in no wise be comprehended. For whatsoever can be conceived by man is a reality that hath limitations and is not unlimited; it is circumscribed, not all-embracing. It can be comprehended by man, and is controlled by him."

(Abdu'l-Baha, Tablet to August Forel, p. 13)

We believe the "essence" of God is unknowable and to be quite honest about it we're not saying we know how creation occurs... also we believe the universe or "creation" is co-eternal with God... God didn't create the universe out of "nothing". There are a few additional articles about the Baha'i views here:

Searching for the Grand Unified Theory

 

[Skwim]

I don't need a lecture from a rude poster.

A lecture? A little over three lines of text constitute a lecture. Really?

I am not attacking evolutionists.

Sure you are. When you say

"Evolutionist can't explain how something (universe) came from nothing."
​

you're attacking their supposed competence: they are incapable of doing X. Forget that evolution has nothing to do with origins, you assail them none the less.

The "something from nothing" argument always comes up with the "who or what" did it question.

It does? If so, I'm sure the theists' answer is, "God did it." And the scientists answer would be, "We very seriously doubt that anything comes from nothing." Two very diametrically opposite positions that leave little ground for argument, which makes it an uninteresting question and one better left to those in high school to ponder.

There are those who believe God is the total explanation and those who believe there is no God, and therefore science is the explanation.

Actually, there are those who believe in god and also believe in science. AND, those who don't believe in god and don't give a fig about science.

There is a middle ground. We can combine both perspectives. Evolution explains how God did it.

Interesting that god needs the help of evolution to explain how he did it. As far as evolution itself is concerned, it has no need for god, which is quite apparent to those who are familiar with it.

Everything in the universe has evolved according to God's plan or design.

Forgive me for not taking your word for it. After all, a lot on Earth has gone awry that I'm sure wasn't on his drawing board.

We have a better understanding of the universe if we know God's original purpose for its design.

Got an example? An example of knowing god's original purpose for the design of the universe* that has led to a better understanding of it.
*The universe as science recognizes it.

.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Isn't it interesting how the scientific establishment ignored piltdown man was a fraud for six decades in some circles!. Piltdown was, to quote; "presented by the Keeper of Geology at the Natural History Museum of Britain, Arthur Smith Woodward, Piltdown man was “the missing link,” a creature whose features matched what many experts expected an early human to look like. He was a worldwide sensation, and as it turned out, a total fake.

"http://www.textbookhistory.com/what-piltdown-taught/

Lol science men who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks at us po' creationists.....Piltdown haunted college campuses until the early 70's, which is a 60 year long lie~

Piltdown man as I understand and remember it WAS an interesting phenomenon. Two wrinkles are especially interesting:

[1] It's day was that of the hunt for the "missing link," a term which I believe for most meant the creature in between a man and ape (forget for a moment that man IS an ape and that according to the theory. there ought to be a continuum of forms connecting them). Apparently, the British were so keen on this missing link being a Brit that they were less skeptical than they should have been.

[2] The other interesting wrinkle is that at that time, a key question was which of the many differences between the other apes and man appeared first in evolution. The Piltdown fraudsters guessed that it was the larger brain, so their fraudulent fossils featured a bigger brained quadriped ape.

Eventually, Lucy (Australopithicus afarensis) was unearthed, a small-brained bipedal ape. Apparently, bipedalism came before bigger brains.

This episode, along with Haeckel's drawings, is frequently offered by science's critics as reasons to not trust science. But doesn't it say just the opposite? They might have been slow to uncover the fraud, but it was science that did it, and collectively, performed ethically by ferreting out the fraud, exposing it, and correcting the error. This inherent honesty of the collective, it's desire to uncover the truth, and its mechanism for self-correcting when necessary, are considered virtues by people like me.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I know a few times one I remember where they published a book on creationism saying they had proof beyond proof that creationism has all the answers for our existence. Students who were Christian college students were buying it.


I also know they also claim there are footprints where you see people foot prints next to dinosaur footprints and sense people existed with dinosaurs it proves the timing evolutionists use are false and the ancient humans evolutionists use are wrong.

Yall argue that one? You ever argue about any creationist books with them? Just curious.

I haven't read any creationist books, so I can't argue about any specifically, although I do like to discuss the topic of creationist apologetics sources in general. I've seen citations on the Internet from a book by Harun Yahya, a Muslim creationist, but that's it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Evolutionist can't explain how something (universe) came from nothing. That is the enduring argument evolutionists cannot refuted.

Evolutionists needn't bother trying.

Perhaps you have them confused with cosmologists. If so, you are misrepresenting cosmology. The idea of our universe being the only existent and having arisen from nothing is one of the conceivable scenarios. I've itemized it with five others. They all seem impossible. One of them is that a designer, builder, and creator god exists undesigned and uncreated. How is that less likely or incomprehensible than the idea you reject?

And if explaining is your criterion, you need to eject your god hypothesis. It explains nothing. "God did it" is not an an explanation. It's a claim lacking a mechanism and unsupported by evidence. It's no more explanatory than "Norman did it" or "It did it itself." In every case, much, much more is needed to call it an explanation.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Early in the twentieth century Abdul-Baha the oldest Son of Baha'u'llah was asked some questions about creation and science at the time and He responded and His responses were translated into English in a book entitled "Some Answered Questions" this book has been in print for almost a hundred years and was recently revised as to a few words in the English translation..But let me state a few principles that Baha'is accept before I share what was more specifically stated about "creation"; "evolution"; etc.

The principle held by Baha'is is that science and religion should be in harmony.. As we are all aware there has been a struggle in European circles between science and religion.. a separation for sure and an antagonism between them. So the following are a translation of the words of Abdul-Baha on the issue between science and religion:

"Religion and Science are inter-twined with each other and cannot be separated. These are the two wings with which humanity must fly. 29 One wing is not enough. Every religion which does not concern itself with Science is mere tradition, and that is not the essential. Therefore science, education and civilization are most important necessities for the full religious life."
"The search for truth man must weigh religious questions in the balance of science and reason."

I have to leave this for now and will continue to the gist of the issue of creation and such later this evening...

Alright so returning... there are in my view three aspects of the process in the Baha'i Writings...

We acknowledge "creation" as an ongoing process;

"All originated from God and returneth unto Him: verily He is the Source of creation and the Goal of the worlds." (Abdu'l-Baha, A Traveller's Narrative, p. 83)

What is the nature of the connection between God and the creature -- that is to say, between the Independent, the Most High, and the other beings?

Answer. -- The connection between God and the creatures is that of the creator to the creation; it is like the connection between the sun and the dark bodies of contingent beings, and is the connection between the maker and the things that he has made. The sun in its own essence is independent of the bodies which it lights, for its light is in itself and is free and independent of the terrestrial globe; so the earth is under the influence of the sun and receives its light, whereas the sun and its rays are entirely independent of the earth. But if there were no sun, the earth and all earthly beings could not exist. The dependence of the creatures upon God is a dependence of emanation -- that is to say, creatures emanate from God; they do not manifest Him.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 202)

The universe has no beginning or end:

"...it is certain that this world of existence, this endless universe, has neither beginning nor end. Yes, it may be that one of the parts of the universe, one of the globes, for example, may come into existence, or may be disintegrated, but the other endless globes are still existing; the universe would not be disordered nor destroyed."

(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 180)

Evolution is also part of the process:

"....as man in the womb of the mother passes from form to form, from shape to shape, changes and develops, and is still the human species from the beginning of the embryonic period -- in the same way man, from the beginning of his existence in the matrix of the world, is also a distinct species -- that is, man -- and has gradually evolved from one form to another..."

(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 192)

Finally and in closing there's an excellent article on wikipedia on the subject:

Bahá'í Faith and science - Wikipedia

"Religion and Science are inter-twined with each other and cannot be separated."

Disagree. Neither has anything to do with the other, and religion brings nothing to science. How could it?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There are those who believe God is the total explanation and those who believe there is no God, and therefore science is the explanation. There is a middle ground. We can combine both perspectives. Evolution explains how God did it. Science allows us to marvel at God's creation. Everything in the universe has evolved according to God's plan or design.

We have a better understanding of the universe if we know God's original purpose for its design. I propose God created the universe as a prison for Satan, HIs rebellious angel.

The religious position adds nothing. If you think otherwise, please show us how religion increases our understanding of the universe. Which religion? Which god? What has either ever done for us in this department?

Religion is free to invent ideas that can't and won't be tested and promises that need not be kept. I find no value in that. I can't use that. I don't need comforting. I am content that I may live in a godless universe. That may be true, and if so, it's OK.

 

[Altfish]

Isn't it interesting how the scientific establishment ignored piltdown man was a fraud for six decades in some circles!. Piltdown was, to quote; "presented by the Keeper of Geology at the Natural History Museum of Britain, Arthur Smith Woodward, Piltdown man was “the missing link,” a creature whose features matched what many experts expected an early human to look like. He was a worldwide sensation, and as it turned out, a total fake.

"http://www.textbookhistory.com/what-piltdown-taught/

Lol science men who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks at us po' creationists.....Piltdown haunted college campuses until the early 70's, which is a 60 year long lie~

Who disproved Piltdown Man?
Religious people?
No, Piltdown Man was disproved by scientists, scientists who had been sceptical all along.

Piltdown Man doesn't haunt science; it shows its strength in all its glory. Science isn't adverse to changing its mind if better or contradictory evidence comes along.
Does your religious book ever get rewritten when new evidence comes along?

 

[LuisDantas]

I've never understood the creationist fascination with Piltdown Man. It was a deliberate fraud that took decades to expose, therefore.............what?

(So-called) Creationists often assume science to be scriptural and dogmatist in nature, and mistake the new findings for displays of "weakness".

When all you have learned to use is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, apparently.

 

[gnostic]

Who says they have to? It isn't the converted who need convincing...its the undecided...and judging by the number of people who view these threads, many are trying to make up their minds. Truth doesn't change.

What truth are you talking about?

The bible never explain any natural event or natural phenomena.

The people wrote each book and letter in the bible, have no superior knowledges in science or mathematics or in technology.

The ancient civilisations like Egypt, Babylonia, Persia, Greece and Rome were far more advanced than both Hebrews and 1st century Christians. And even though many of their science have been outdated, they have made marks that allow future advancement.

The Abrahamic scriptures, including the Qur'an, show no insight how to acquire knowledge, how to challenge presumptions and how to test knowledge and assumptions.

The bible is no science book, and that much is clear is that none of the passages within demonstrated clear knowledge of biology. And none of the books show they knew more than their contemporaries about earth science and astronomy.

The bible cannot even give instructions on how to farm, where to farm, and how to irrigate the land?

Listing seasons of when to sow or when to harvest, are not instructions on how to do things. The bible don't offer any practical farming advice. So if they can't do that, just useful is the bible with regarding to science and technology?

The only useful thing the bible has to offer, are social conducts, ethics, and law (Torah), but even can become outdated, and most of law only apply to the people of Israel (12 tribes and the Levites).

Christians should stick to ethics and spirituality, because as it stand, the gospels are worthless in matter of science and technology. And YEC creationists who tried to mix science and religion together, only ends up making complete of themselves or show how less than honest than they are.

 

[Thumper]

What truth are you talking about?

...
The only useful thing the bible has to offer, are social conducts, ethics, and law (Torah), but even can become outdated, and most of law only apply to the people of Israel (12 tribes and the Levites).

Christians should stick to ethics and spirituality, because as it stand, the gospels are worthless in matter of science and technology. And YEC creationists who tried to mix science and religion together, only ends up making complete of themselves or show how less than honest than they are.

I would argue that even ethics and morals are outside the realm of the Bible. Unless one thinks women should remain silent and let the men handle things, and slavery is good, and it's okay to stone unruly children, and we should kill witches, etc., etc., etc.

In fact I would challenge anybody to show me a single moral precept that can be shown to have originated from the Bible. Just one moral guideline that would not exist were it not for the Bible?

 

[Igno Ramus]

I don't think I can out flank you people. You guys are the best creationist debunker i've ever came across. Keep it up. Thanks fellows. You fellows are doing a hell of a mighty fine job. Love it.

 

[Skwim]

Does your religious book ever get rewritten when new evidence comes along?

....."WASH YOUR MOUTH OUT!"


.​

 

[Igno Ramus]

I doubt creationist have anything new to say. The banana man and Crocoduck must have found a place under a rock and crawl in to take a long nap. They are not even active in facebook. So are the Flat Earther morons are laying low. D. Drumpf have given evangelicals the freedom to talk politics in their church during worship time. With Betsy De Vos, the newly minted Secretary of Education have other ideas, I am sure she will find a way to allow creationism to be taught in public school side by side with science. I guess i find the old saying that the more things changes, the more it remain the same keeps recycling. . We atheist need to fight it all over again. But don't despair over it. I am beginning to enjoy it. Shalom.

My avatar is that of a Pygmy Tarsier found in Bohol Island, Philippines. There are reports of sightings in Mindanao a larger island. Very recently a report from Indonesia reported sightings in Java. They must have been isolated for a long time, perhaps thousands or even tens of thousands of years for both countries are made up strings of islands archipelagos. It will be interesting to find out if they are separate species as a result from their isolation from each other. Perhaps a genetic analysis to trace their origin. They might be endemic from Madagascar and Comoros. It would make tracing Tarsiers migration and family group evolutionary routing and time eras, perhaps even to the African continent. These animals could not have accidentally hitch a ride on a tree raft across one island to another is hardly possible. The most plausible hypothesis is that they arrive on the island as a passenger on the island itself when it broke apart from the main land masses.

 

[Jose Fly]

Early in the twentieth century Abdul-Baha the oldest Son of Baha'u'llah was asked some questions about creation and science at the time and He responded and His responses were translated into English in a book entitled "Some Answered Questions" this book has been in print for almost a hundred years and was recently revised as to a few words in the English translation..But let me state a few principles that Baha'is accept before I share what was more specifically stated about "creation"; "evolution"; etc.

The principle held by Baha'is is that science and religion should be in harmony.. As we are all aware there has been a struggle in European circles between science and religion.. a separation for sure and an antagonism between them. So the following are a translation of the words of Abdul-Baha on the issue between science and religion:

"Religion and Science are inter-twined with each other and cannot be separated. These are the two wings with which humanity must fly. 29 One wing is not enough. Every religion which does not concern itself with Science is mere tradition, and that is not the essential. Therefore science, education and civilization are most important necessities for the full religious life."
"The search for truth man must weigh religious questions in the balance of science and reason."

I have to leave this for now and will continue to the gist of the issue of creation and such later this evening...

Alright so returning... there are in my view three aspects of the process in the Baha'i Writings...

We acknowledge "creation" as an ongoing process;

"All originated from God and returneth unto Him: verily He is the Source of creation and the Goal of the worlds." (Abdu'l-Baha, A Traveller's Narrative, p. 83)

What is the nature of the connection between God and the creature -- that is to say, between the Independent, the Most High, and the other beings?

Answer. -- The connection between God and the creatures is that of the creator to the creation; it is like the connection between the sun and the dark bodies of contingent beings, and is the connection between the maker and the things that he has made. The sun in its own essence is independent of the bodies which it lights, for its light is in itself and is free and independent of the terrestrial globe; so the earth is under the influence of the sun and receives its light, whereas the sun and its rays are entirely independent of the earth. But if there were no sun, the earth and all earthly beings could not exist. The dependence of the creatures upon God is a dependence of emanation -- that is to say, creatures emanate from God; they do not manifest Him.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 202)

The universe has no beginning or end:

"...it is certain that this world of existence, this endless universe, has neither beginning nor end. Yes, it may be that one of the parts of the universe, one of the globes, for example, may come into existence, or may be disintegrated, but the other endless globes are still existing; the universe would not be disordered nor destroyed."

(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 180)

Evolution is also part of the process:

"....as man in the womb of the mother passes from form to form, from shape to shape, changes and develops, and is still the human species from the beginning of the embryonic period -- in the same way man, from the beginning of his existence in the matrix of the world, is also a distinct species -- that is, man -- and has gradually evolved from one form to another..."

(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 192)

Finally and in closing there's an excellent article on wikipedia on the subject:

Bahá'í Faith and science - Wikipedia

Very interesting. Thanks for posting.

 

[Jose Fly]

I stand corrected.

Thanks for that. It's rare to see anyone on the internet do what you did.

 

[Jose Fly]

(So-called) Creationists often assume science to be scriptural and dogmatist in nature, and mistake the new findings for displays of "weakness".

When all you have learned to use is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, apparently.

That's another one of their fundamental contradictions. They accuse scientists of being dogmatic and overselling their findings as "fact", yet when they see language like "most likely", "probably", and such in published papers, the creationists complain and shout that the scientists don't even know for sure.

IOW they complain no matter what, and operate under a very dishonest heads-I-win, tails-you-lose framework.

 

[Repox]

The religious position adds nothing. If you think otherwise, please show us how religion increases our understanding of the universe. Which religion? Which god? What has either ever done for us in this department?

Religion is free to invent ideas that can't and won't be tested and promises that need not be kept. I find no value in that. I can't use that. I don't need comforting. I am content that I may live in a godless universe. That may be true, and if so, it's OK.

I don't have to explain, I never mentioned religion.

 

[Repox]

Evolutionists needn't bother trying.

Perhaps you have them confused with cosmologists. If so, you are misrepresenting cosmology. The idea of our universe being the only existent and having arisen from nothing is one of the conceivable scenarios. I've itemized it with five others. They all seem impossible. One of them is that a designer, builder, and creator god exists undesigned and uncreated. How is that less likely or incomprehensible than the idea you reject?

And if explaining is your criterion, you need to eject your god hypothesis. It explains nothing. "God did it" is not an an explanation. It's a claim lacking a mechanism and unsupported by evidence. It's no more explanatory than "Norman did it" or "It did it itself." In every case, much, much more is needed to call it an explanation.

Science is in a quandary, they can't explain the big bang. Based on logic, God is the only plausible explanation because no one but God can create something from nothing. For us in a material world God is nothing, we cannot see the supernatural world. It is only when God reveals the supernatural world can we see it. God created a material universe from nothing (supernatural essence), now we have something from the supernatural world. I am sure you won't like my explanation, but I don't care, I don't like your criticism.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don't have to explain, I never mentioned religion.

A semantic argument? Then you won't mind if I make one myself then, will you? :

I never mentioned explaining.