japan rocks/andromeda Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 some people belive that the earth was created in 6 days others think it was a period of millions of years which is it what do you think:confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 How would you describe the people holding each of those opinions, and which group would you trust to give you the more accurate answer to other scientific questions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 The basic premise of creation is the Earth is more or less 6,000 years old, far to much evidence that is not true. All the other assertions of creationism stand on that one premise, so many of the ideas behind creation are obviously untrue. No extinctions, all life is descended from a few animals saved on Noah's Ark, no evidence i am aware support creation at all, the evidence supporting the evolution of life not to mention the ancient age of the Earth is over whelming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toastywombel Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 The basic premise of creation is the Earth is more or less 6,000 years old, far to much evidence that is not true. All the other assertions of creationism stand on that one premise, so many of the ideas behind creation are obviously untrue. No extinctions, all life is descended from a few animals saved on Noah's Ark, no evidence i am aware support creation at all, the evidence supporting the evolution of life not to mention the ancient age of the Earth is over whelming. Iecho the above, and haven't we had an evolution vs creationism thread before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
japan rocks/andromeda Posted April 14, 2010 Author Share Posted April 14, 2010 i believe in the evoulution of the earth the earth can not be created in 6 days Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbies_Kid Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 i believe in the evoulution of the earth the earth can not be created in 6 days Muslims believe that God create earth in just 6 days... So, I would suggest that this topic moved to the religion section. No scientific argument here but only own assumptions.. this is just my suggestion, no offense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 Iecho the above, and haven't we had an evolution vs creationism thread before? We've had several. They all get shut down. One side of the discussion contains precious little science, and that's a problem. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSHMUNNIES Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 if anywhere, this belongs in the RELIGION forum....this is not earth science Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toastywombel Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 We've had several. They all get shut down. One side of the discussion contains precious little science, and that's a problem. Well, don't get on my jock about it . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
japan rocks/andromeda Posted April 15, 2010 Author Share Posted April 15, 2010 if anywhere, this belongs in the RELIGION forum....this is not earth scienceits how the earth got created so it should be in the earht science forum i think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted April 15, 2010 Share Posted April 15, 2010 The theory of evolution does not cover the creation of earth (see Nebular theory), nor the beginning of life (abiogenesis). Nor the creation of the universe (we don't have one agreed upon one, but we do have a Big Bang theory for the period a tiny tiny fraction of a second later). Please don't lump all of these under evolution. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbies_Kid Posted April 15, 2010 Share Posted April 15, 2010 its how the earth got created so it should be in the earht science forum i think May i say that you now admit that our earth was created? My opinion, nothing can evolve without being created first. The crucial thing is.. how the smallest part/particle exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 15, 2010 Share Posted April 15, 2010 Well, don't get on my jock about it . Didn't intend for it to be interpreted as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toastywombel Posted April 15, 2010 Share Posted April 15, 2010 Didn't intend for it to be interpreted as such. No I know. I think maybe we should avoid people from posting more evolution vs. creationism threads, at least in Earth Science. I mean technically they aren't even comparable theories. Evolution explains how life on our planet became diverse and adapted to their environments. Creationism explains how God created everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pioneer Posted April 15, 2010 Share Posted April 15, 2010 I see creationism in a way, which is easier for me to explain with an analogy. The planet pluto has been around for since the beginning of the solar system; 5-6 billion years. However, the planet pluto did not come into full human awareness, until the 1930's, although it has been postulated to exist back in the 1840's. Creationism is connected to when humans developed the first documented theories of the universe as a evolving process. Creation 6000 years ago, was not when the universe physically appeared in reality, but when it conceptually became reality, for the human mind. When I read Creationism, I look at it in the context of the times. The authors had to start from scratch, without any precedent. They did not have the internet, books or teachers to tell them. They were witness to a creative process, where the universe and evolution was first contemplated as an integrated series of events. Those who came later had this evolutionary gist, taught to them or written down to read, so they could ponder. Through the centuries, many contemplated from this and in the modern times the biological parts became modern evolution. Maybe another analogy is the first computer. It was very primitive, huge with only small functionality by modern standards. If we compared the modern supercomputer to this, it looks like a child built the first one. From the point of view of historical context, this original prototype, although simple and crude by modern standards, was the critical seed that made all the future of computers possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted April 15, 2010 Share Posted April 15, 2010 I see creationism in a way, which is easier for me to explain with an analogy. The planet pluto has been around for since the beginning of the solar system; 5-6 billion years. However, the planet pluto did not come into full human awareness, until the 1930's, although it has been postulated to exist back in the 1840's. I know of no planet by that name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pioneer Posted April 15, 2010 Share Posted April 15, 2010 Pluto used to be a planet. Science changed its mind, which is a woman's prerogative, and took the planet title away from Pluto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmydasaint Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 Sorry but this topic is not in accordance with the rules of the Forum and needs to be moved or changed into a question that can be answered by scientific means. The question belongs to a religion forum our SFN's sub forum. Why not ask a more suitable question, for example: The word 'yaum' in Hebrew means 'days' or 'aeons'/'phases'. Is it possible that the Creation of the Earth occurred in 6 aeons or phases? Does science back up this assertion? Incidentally, the 6000 yrs premise is not held by many believers - there are also Old Earth Creation believers. Please rephrase and re-post in a more suitable section. You are much more likely to get the responses you need. BTW I am not a Moderator... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pioneer Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 The position I hold is; creationism was an early part of the evolution of human consciousness. This ancient theory created a set of ideas for human contemplation, which helped the early humans think beyond their sensory systems. This was needed for civilization, since invention is not part of reality during conception, but can appear from nothing like this theory of the universe. Creation was a spontaneous creation, when conceived, since it had no precedent, there were no books, teachers, etc.. It was as natural as a genetic mutation, yet targeted to the path through which humans would evolve; mind instead of matter. In other words, humans over the past 10,000 years have come a long way. But little of this is attributed to genetic changes. Most of the progress was centered on the brain/mind, with creationism one of the original natural perturbations of the ancient mind, that got the ball rolling. It was attributed to god because it was a spontaneous occurrence, but not from DNA. The impact over the centuries would be through external learning and internal contemplation; brain not DNA. To me is is just as important as the first biological replicators. It became a way to trigger the brain to do a type of intellectual replication and mutation into variations, thereof. If it had not occurred, the brain may not have had one of the key seeds, leading to civilization. In the bible, Adam became a living soul. This is not talking about biology since a soul is ethereal. The mind changed, not the body. The body already had all it needed to start civilization, only the mind needed an upgrade; living soul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrP Posted April 17, 2010 Share Posted April 17, 2010 Pluto used to be a planet. Science changed its mind, which is a woman's prerogative, and took the planet title away from Pluto. When I was a boy it was one of my favourite planets! I think we should make it an honoury planet for old time's sake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidd Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 well u really cant mix science with religion i mean science is still in its infancy!!! a lot of things were recently explained by science which were written in some religion books long time back (don't remember but will give reference if u need) the thing which science simply does is explain how. the when is still always under question and why well science doesn't hold the answer to that! the question should be that if through science one must prove the creation of earth/other planets through a certain method than they will always circle to answer of how the first ever particle (if there was) was created! and according to science that answer is always a loop!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMF Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 Sidd. Because religious answers are much more circular than scientific explanations, I presume you have some alternative that you didn't mention. SM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 well u really cant mix science with religion i mean science is still in its infancy!!! a lot of things were recently explained by science which were written in some religion books long time back (don't remember but will give reference if u need) the thing which science simply does is explain how. the when is still always under question and why well science doesn't hold the answer to that! the question should be that if through science one must prove the creation of earth/other planets through a certain method than they will always circle to answer of how the first ever particle (if there was) was created! and according to science that answer is always a loop!!!! Yes, please supply the reference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwagen Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 the question should be that if through science one must prove the creation of earth/other planets through a certain method than they will always circle to answer of how the first ever particle (if there was) was created! and according to science that answer is always a loop!!!! Well, science has a pretty good grasp both on how the first particles were formed, as well as how the planets formed, as well as how they relate to each other. It all began around 13.7 billion years ago and hasn't repeated itself yet. Speaking of loops, who created God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 Speaking of loops, who created God? ! Moderator Note This is not the religion forum. Don't go there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts