LucasForums

LucasForums (http://www.lucasforums.com/index.php)
-   Senate Chambers (http://www.lucasforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=445)
-   -   Does anybody really believe in Creationism (sorry, Intelligent Design) anymore? (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=197056)

EnderWiggin 04-12-2009 09:18 PM

Does anybody really believe in Creationism (sorry, Intelligent Design) anymore?
 
Does anyone actually still think that Intelligent Design is a winning theory?

I mean, it's one thing to believe God worked through evolution (which I do) but how do you say that God created us 6000 years ago with a straight face?

_EW_

SkinWalker 04-12-2009 09:55 PM

Nope.

Achilles 04-12-2009 10:37 PM

I beg to differ:

Clicky

Tommycat 04-12-2009 11:28 PM

Actually Ender, what you believe in is Intelligent Design. God working through nature.

And yes some people still believe in a 6000 year old Earth. Not taking into account the possibility that the six days could mean 6 non-Earth days to God. To something that exists outside our perception of time, 6 days could mean a great many things.

Interesting to note that the Hebrew word used for day could also be used to represent era.

SkinWalker 04-12-2009 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles (Post 2613528)
I beg to differ:

Clicky

I should have clarified. I was only speaking for myself. :)

Achilles 04-13-2009 12:01 AM

I figured :)

Totenkopf 04-13-2009 12:45 AM

Quote:

Interesting to note that the Hebrew word used for day could also be used to represent era.
QFT/E.

That often tends to be the problem with ancient literature/languages and how they are interpreted in modern times.

SkinWalker 04-13-2009 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Totenkopf (Post 2613580)
QFT/E.

That often tends to be the problem with ancient literature/languages and how they are interpreted in modern times.

Interestingly enough, the Hebrew word poth literally means "hinged opening." Yet in a verse found in Isaiah we can read, "[t]herefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the Lord will lay bare their foreheads."

"Foreheads" is inserted in the translation I was reading where, in Hebrew it says, poth! Now go back and re-insert the literal translation, "hinged-openings" in place of foreheads. The translators were so put off by this, they purposely and intentionally redacted the original context to the point that many sermons are spoke that talk about the act of shaving heads when what's really said in the bible is the Christian god exposed their vaginas.

It isn't hard to imagine that people have been inserting whatever they want in biblical mythology over the years.

Achilles 04-13-2009 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinWalker (Post 2613587)
It isn't hard to imagine that people have been inserting whatever they want in biblical mythology over the years.

This reminds me of a book I read once...

Totenkopf 04-13-2009 01:11 AM

Or probably any texts for that matter.

Sabretooth 04-13-2009 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnderWiggin (Post 2613501)
Does anyone actually still think that Intelligent Design is a winning theory?

I mean, it's one thing to believe God worked through evolution (which I do) but how do you say that God created us 6000 years ago with a straight face?

I just thought I should chip in that my mom, among many other people I know here find it surprising that a country as developed as the United States should have problems between hardline atheists on one side and people claiming that the world is 6000 years old on the other. >.<

Achilles 04-13-2009 01:31 AM

I find it surprising too, but I guess I don't see the problem with there being any "hardline" atheists here. It implies that there is something wrong with that position :p

Tommycat 04-13-2009 03:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles (Post 2613603)
I find it surprising too, but I guess I don't see the problem with there being any "hardline" atheists here. It implies that there is something wrong with that position :p

says the hardline atheist.

Actually Skin, remember when you're talking about the original Hebrew, you are talking about the Jewish god as well as the Christian god. The New Testament was written in Greek. You would be more correct if you said Judeo-Christian though as the god is shared between the two faiths.

SkinWalker 04-13-2009 10:03 AM

Wouldn't it be like saying to my daughter "my brother" or "your uncle" when referring to my sibling? They're still the same person......

Tommycat 04-14-2009 07:09 AM

Not completely Skin, As mentioned elsewhere God appeared to have changed between the Torah and the New Testament. In the Old Testament, that god was a vengeful angry god. However in the New Testament he changed into a squishy lovable god. So when referencing god per the old testament you should be more specific. Or, you could just write out YHWH and not have to worry about stating explicitly Judeo-Christian as the name would imply it. Technically the REASON behind Christ being born was so we didn't have to do all the crap from the OT. Most Christians don't even understand that much though. They follow the Church though Jesus was opposed to the Church....

It really makes a difference when you are talking about translations as well. If you are talking about translating from Hebrew, you are talking about the old testament, well more specifically the Torah. When you say Christian God, you are talking about both the Torah and the books written in Greek by the Apostles. I would think someone in the field you are in would have a better grasp of knowing which translation to use.

mimartin 04-14-2009 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommycat (Post 2613547)
Actually Ender, what you believe in is Intelligent Design. God working through nature.

Does he? Does that stand for all that describe themselves as Christians?

I’m a Christian that does not believe in Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is merely a fake attempt at a theory in order circumvent a losing battle and get Creationism taught in schools.

SkinWalker 04-14-2009 09:16 AM

Its still the same god. Yahweh didn't step out for "God" in a tag-team style match. They're the same guy. The fact that Judeo-Christian literature and mythology reads like a different god is because the perception of this god evolved with the zeitgeist of the moment. This is easy to do when the god isn't really there to begin with and Jews/Christians/Muslims weren't the first to experience evolutions in their deity. Other cultures have as well.

Tommycat 04-14-2009 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinWalker (Post 2614148)
Its still the same god. Yahweh didn't step out for "God" in a tag-team style match. They're the same guy. The fact that Judeo-Christian literature and mythology reads like a different god is because the perception of this god evolved with the zeitgeist of the moment. This is easy to do when the god isn't really there to begin with and Jews/Christians/Muslims weren't the first to experience evolutions in their deity. Other cultures have as well.

Because BOTH religions still exist. One sacred text is used in both, since you are talking about a text that does not recognize Jesus the Christ(the original Hebrew Torah) it is incorrect to call the god the Christian god. The Torah is included in the Bible, but it is still the primary text of a religion that does not recognize the Christian faith as part of it's own and therefore using the term Christian in translations of the Torah is incorrect.

EnderWiggin 04-14-2009 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommycat (Post 2613547)
Actually Ender, what you believe in is Intelligent Design. God working through nature.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia; Intelligent Design
Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2]

Maybe in a roundabout sense I believe that God designed the universe, but in the modern sense, I do not believe in Intelligent Design (ie that God said, oh, let's take this rib and put it into Eve, let's make a serpent, let's make the animals and the fishes).

Intelligent Design opposes evolution, which I obviously agree with. So thank you for trying to explain to me my beliefs, but for the most part, I can handle it.

I believe that God wrote the rules to the game, but how the universe is played is not his doing. TBH, I'm actually more of a deist (ie the "watchmaker" theory) than anything.

_EW_

Darth Avlectus 04-14-2009 10:52 PM

Eh. I guess there is a realistic way to see the two as compatible. I've always thought that the two are compatible on some level without contradiction.

Perhaps even covering each others' holes and flaws, maybe? We may never know.


Just my :twocents:.

Samuel Dravis 04-14-2009 11:04 PM

I read an interesting paper on this today, actually. The paper asserts that while it was acceptable at one time to posit theistic interventionism (i.e., intelligent design, etc), such explanations are no longer sufficiently comparable to the explanatory power of naturalism to be held seriously, even by theists.

Achilles 04-14-2009 11:07 PM

They're compatibility depends largely on perspective.

From a strictly scientific perspective, adding the religious component is untestable and unnecessary. Sure, it could have been god, but there's no reason to accept that hypothesis and the model works just fine without him/her/it/them.

From a moderate/liberal/deist perspective, the science is undeniable, however personal belief favors accepting that god did have a role, regardless of whether the "extra step" is necessary or not.

From a fundamentalist perspective, the bible says god did it. Any one that says differently is wrong. End of discussion.

If the fundamentalists didn't exist, I'd probably be able to take it a little bit easier on the moderates/liberals/deists. Unfortunately, they do, and the Culture War wages on. :(

GarfieldJL 04-15-2009 12:12 AM

The thing is you can argue that God can use natural events to cause other things to happen. Like say have a volcano go off in location X to cause a rain of fire to occur in location Y.

Achilles 04-15-2009 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL (Post 2614512)
The thing is you can argue that God can use natural events to cause other things to happen. Like say have a volcano go off in location X to cause a rain of fire to occur in location Y.

You sure can, but if you know that natural events happen...err, naturally, then why? We know the mechanics behind volcanoes. We don't need god in order to explain them. So why add unnecessary steps which cannot be confirmed or ruled out?

Alexrd 04-16-2009 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnderWiggin (Post 2614428)
Maybe in a roundabout sense I believe that God designed the universe, but in the modern sense, I do not believe in Intelligent Design (ie that God said, oh, let's take this rib and put it into Eve, let's make a serpent, let's make the animals and the fishes).

No. What you believe is Intelligent Design. What you've mencioned as "(ie that God said, oh, let's take this rib and put it into Eve, let's make a serpent, let's make the animals and the fishes)" is Creationism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnderWiggin (Post 2614428)
Intelligent Design opposes evolution, which I obviously agree with. So thank you for trying to explain to me my beliefs, but for the most part, I can handle it.

It doesn't opposes evolution. Instead, Intelligent Design justifies the creation of the universe to be God's creation. (ie that God created the Big Bang).

Samuel Dravis 04-16-2009 12:30 PM

An interesting and somewhat funny part of the paper I posted earlier is that it said that many quite devout religious people who were scientists also believed in spontaneous generation (aka life from non-life, something similar to the modern abiogenesis). Who knows why abiogenesis is disagreed with now on religious grounds when it was accepted for a very long time before this, even at a time when religion was far more influential than it is now.

Achilles 04-16-2009 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexrdias (Post 2615081)
Instead, Intelligent Design justifies the creation of the universe to be God's creation. (ie that God created the Big Bang).

= Creationism.

In the United States, it is against the law to teach creationism in any school that receives funding from the Federal government (it violates the Establishment Clause of our constitution).

mimartin 04-17-2009 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexrdias (Post 2615081)
No. What you believe is Intelligent Design.

I disagree. Just because I believe in God does not mean I have to believe in a fake scientific theory thought up by a conservative think tank in an attempt to circumvent U.S. Laws. So no, I do not believe in intelligent design as it is not has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics.

Ray Jones 04-17-2009 11:33 AM

So you believe in creationism?

mimartin 04-17-2009 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Jones (Post 2615439)
So you believe in creationism?

No.

I'm not able to deny the evidence of evolution or natural selection which causes my major issues with intelligent design beyond intelligent design merely being a gimmick.

Q 04-17-2009 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexrdias
Instead, Intelligent Design justifies the creation of the universe to be God's creation. (ie that God created the Big Bang).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles
= Creationism.

I thought that Creationism was the dogmatic adherence to the belief that God created the Earth in literally 6 days as stated in the Bible, not that He caused the Big Bang.

It will be interesting to see what will be discovered as increasingly powerful telescopes are put in orbit that can see farther and farther "back in time". Both (or all three?) sides of this argument may get their answer then.

Alexrd 04-17-2009 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mimartin (Post 2615428)
I disagree. Just because I believe in God does not mean I have to believe in a fake scientific theory thought up by a conservative think tank in an attempt to circumvent U.S. Laws. So no, I do not believe in intelligent design as it is not has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics.

I was talking to EnderWiggin and he has made his point very clearly, so I don't understand why you disagree. And I never said that just because someone believe in God has to agree with Big Bang or whatever. I have just stated an example of what is Intelligent Design.

@ Achilles: I know that ID is a type of Creationism, but what I meant while writing Creationism is that someone beleives on the creation of Earth literally as stated in the Genesis.

mimartin 04-17-2009 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexrdias (Post 2615461)
I have just stated an example of what is Intelligent Design.

So was I, intelligent design is a fake scientific theory thought up by the Discovery Institute after they lost in the court of law. Someone that believes God has a hand in the Big Bang Theory does not mean they subscribe to the fake theory of intelligent design.

I just donít believe in labeling someone as believing in intelligent design when it is a fake science only designed for political reason. I donít care if people want to believe in creationism, intelligent design or witchcraft, letís just teach real science in school and they can study creationism and intelligent design at home or in church. ;)

Achilles 04-17-2009 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qliveur (Post 2615450)
I thought that Creationism was the dogmatic adherence to the belief that God created the Earth in literally 6 days as stated in the Bible,

= Fundamentalism/Literalism

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qliveur (Post 2615450)
not that He caused the Big Bang.

For the purposes of U.S. law, still = Creationism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qliveur (Post 2615450)
It will be interesting to see what will be discovered as increasingly powerful telescopes are put in orbit that can see farther and farther "back in time". Both (or all three?) sides of this argument may get their answer then.

No need. We have an overwhelming amount of evidence for the Big Bang. Nearly every prediction that was made has been confirmed.

The only piece of the puzzle missing is what caused it, however we don't need that piece to know that it happened. So the question here is "did god cause the big bang?" and unfortunately, no telescope is going to answer that question.

Ray Jones 04-17-2009 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mimartin (Post 2615441)
No.

I'm not able to deny the evidence of evolution or natural selection which causes my major issues with intelligent design beyond intelligent design merely being a gimmick.

What would you call your belief/point of view then?

Q 04-17-2009 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles (Post 2615474)
No need. We have an overwhelming amount of evidence for the Big Bang. Nearly every prediction that was made has been confirmed.

Oh, I'm not contesting that it happened; I'm sure that it did. What I'm curious about its what came before it.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles
The only piece of the puzzle missing is what caused it, however we don't need that piece to know that it happened. So the question here is "did god cause the big bang?" and unfortunately, no telescope is going to answer that question.

I don't think that it would either, but it might show what the Big Bang was the result of, and what it came from.

Det. Bart Lasiter 04-17-2009 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Jones (Post 2615475)
What would you call your belief/point of view then?

diet christianity
christianity zero
the carbless christianity (low in transfats)

True_Avery 04-17-2009 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mimartin (Post 2615428)
I disagree. Just because I believe in God does not mean I have to believe in a fake scientific theory thought up by a conservative think tank in an attempt to circumvent U.S. Laws. So no, I do not believe in intelligent design as it is not has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics.

So, you neither believe god created the universe, guided the universe, guided evolution, created life, etc.

What exactly does that mean? You believe in a god that has essentially done absolutely nothing ever?

Then why exactly believe in your god at all?

Samuel Dravis 04-17-2009 08:52 PM

There are some concepts of God that view him as a sustainer of existence, i.e., God doesn't do anything because he does everything. The issue of intelligent design wouldn't come up in such systems since they are axiomatic, not empirical. With this kind of concept, saying "God did it" would be wholly redundant and the believer would have no hangups with science, aside perhaps from ethical problems which might arise (cloning humans, genetic manipulation, etc).

Achilles 04-17-2009 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qliveur (Post 2615539)
Oh, I'm not contesting that it happened; I'm sure that it did. What I'm curious about its what came before it.

Technically speaking, the question is a non sequitur because there was no "before". Space-time began with the big bang, therefore there was no time "before" the big bang, therefore nothing could have happened.

Clearly this train of thought will only lead to bottom of a bottle of Tylenol, but I find it helps to realize that we are really sophisticated apes. When you consider that dogs can't learn Algebra, I think the fact that we can design cars means that we punch well above our weight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qliveur (Post 2615539)
I don't think that it would either, but it might show what the Big Bang was the result of, and what it came from.

We have hypothesis, but unfortunately, we lack the technology to measure on the scale necessary to test them. Doesn't mean that we won't. It just means that these are questions that might not be answered in our lifetimes.

Brane cosmology
Zero energy universe

I'm sure ET Warrior would have other great links as well.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:47 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.