Gallup Poll: 4 in 10 believe man created by God 10,000 years ago

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

Otoh, there is a very simple set of mathematical equation that describe the entire working of electro magnetism, gravity and quantum physics. When I was still majoring in engineering, I could write them on the back of a napkin.

Out of these equations, there are many solutions where you can set up pseudo random input, and end up with perfectly symmetrical output, like snow flake crystals, galaxy spiral arms and the rings of saturn.

On the biological front, we have DNA, and evolution which can explain why we end up with eyes. Simulations have shown that you can get from a light sensitive surface to a fully functioning eye in about 600 generations.

The mechanisms are there to create beaty from chaos. Imo, if you want to look for a creator, then marvel at the beautiful simplicity of the laws of nature that govern such a magnificent world, and consider them the primary work of the creator. This is pretty much how I consider them.

I don't, for a second, believe that God had to make an effort for each and every single thing, deciding upon cerebral hemisphere structure, and cornea size while ALSO making sure he wasn't violating the laws of physics. True genius would be to set up the principles and then letting the entire thing take care of its own, and not having to manually structure everything.

---

Amen brother.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

It would be interesting to see if the OP had some thoughts on wet shaving with straight razors once in awhile rather than thread after thread on "hot button" issues that seem to be calculated to generate controversy and divisiveness.

---

I've mentioned it before, politics and religion are two areas best left alone if one wants to avoid the possibility of causing offence.I'm probably as guilty as the next man in this respect.
This kind of forum has a very wide and largely anonymous readership. Perhaps some subjects are better left for discussion amongst those who know each other well and are making eye contact.

I think it's stupid to assert that a "God" who is powerful enough to establish all the laws of nature and be responsible for any of this could be assumed to not be powerful enough to "snap his fingers" (so to speak) and create it all within a week (with a built in day of rest, no less).

I think it is stupid to assume that he (or she) couldn't do so in a way that makes it appear as if the world and universe are billions of years old.

More importantly, I think it's stupid to insult others when none of us really have any way of knowing.

PS. My repeated use of stupid was my sarcastic way of saying that people who think they "know" anything definitively about the origins of our universe should be more respectful of others who don't agree :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

The Bible never was or IS a book of science. It does not describe methods or systems very clearly.

The person in Genesis writing about the creation was (most likely) Moses, who...let's face it...wasn't there at the time. He'd seen the creation of the world (most likely in a vision or such) and in a few simple verses describes what he'd seen.

That's like describing an hour and a half football match as: "First one team had the ball and was doing well, then the other team got the ball....and won"

It's not a description of the plays/strategy they used, the players that were in the game or anything like that.

There's a LOT of gaps in Moses descriptions. He mostly describes who did it....and that it happened (and a little about the order of creation). Nothing more. Not the how which is what science tries to explain.

The Bible isn't enough to explain creation. It never claimed to be either. It focuses on other (more important) stuff like how to make the best out of your life.

Science is important as well. Just not for the same things that the Bible focuses on.

---

Even believers will not alwys agree on how accurate the Bible is. Two common terms many denominations use to describe the authroity of the Bible is "inerrant" and "infallable". Most denominations will declare both, despite what their members actually believe. "Inerrant" when speaking of the Bible means just that, without error...everything, every word, every event, every concept. "Infallable" when speaking of the Bible usually means correct in terms of the spiritual message contained, not all the details of history and physical events.

To me, infallable speaks to what LX has described in Genesis...an overview of the events but not a blow by blow description.

Tony

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by richmondesi

More importantly, I think it's stupid to insult others when none of us really have any way of knowing.

PS. My repeated use of stupid was my sarcastic way of saying that people who think they "know" anything definitively about the origins of our universe should be more respectful of others who don't agree :)

---

Well said.

That is why i never would insult someone for what he believes. Be it Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or even native on his home jungle.

It all goes different different when someone starts to act by his/her religious beliefs, specially when it affects the lives of other people too. I have no religion so i can't say that any such act might in some cases, like in this OP, violate my beliefs but rather my moral codes. Seeing something teached as an absolute truth when it is rather just a belief is something i wouldn't want to call good thing to do.

I have no issues with Creationists. I do not really care what they believe. There are several other examples in history and present when people who behave by what they think their God really says cause harm -more or less- to others and can be seen as morally wrong.

To me religions is how to deal with the one you think -if any- created this all. How to live your life in harmony with what you believe. Knowing it is the best for you. Once someone says it is best for the rest of us as well, then i little disagree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by richmondesi

I think it's stupid to assert that a "God" who is powerful enough to establish all the laws of nature and be responsible for any of this could be assumed to not be powerful enough to "snap his fingers" (so to speak) and create it all within a week (with a built in day of rest, no less).

I think it is stupid to assume that he (or she) couldn't do so in a way that makes it appear as if the world and universe are billions of years old.

---

I couldn't disagree more. Does any religious text mention that a divine being manipulated the physical makeup of the world and universe so as to fool humans into believe it was older than it really is?

This is right out of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series. We should just replace text books with Douglas Adams and call it law. Where's Slartibartfast when you need him?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by commiecat

I couldn't disagree more. Does any religious text mention that a divine being manipulated the physical makeup of the world and universe so as to fool humans into believe it was older than it really is?

This is right out of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series. We should just replace text books with Douglas Adams and call it law. Where's Slartibartfast when you need him?!

---

At least you didn't call me stupid ;)

But, I think you missed the point which is we do not "know" despite our best efforts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by commiecat

I couldn't disagree more. Does any religious text mention that a divine being manipulated the physical makeup of the world and universe so as to fool humans into believe it was older than it really is?

---

What we know as the scriptures were orally handed down before finally being transcribed within the limits of the scientific knowledge of the time. That the earth was flat and was the center of the universe, with the sun revolving around it was, if I understand correctly, the common consensus. So those who transmitted the information did so within the limitations of their knowledge at the time.

I think that rejecting the message because of this is "throwing the baby out with the bath water." As Tony said above, the spiritual message of the text is what we who believe accept. Paul the apostle said,"For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made."

I can get with that when I go outside and look beyond the concrete to the natural world. Some people choose to believe that this world is a coincidence of swamp gas and micro organisms converging but I am not one of them. YMMV. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by richmondesi

At least you didn't call me stupid ;)

But, I think you missed the point which is we do not "know" despite our best efforts

---

I agreed with your third point. :)

We don't know exactly how everything started, but we can prove certain theories wrong. The world wasn't created 10k years ago as far as I'm concerned and the deus ex machina explanation is as silly to me as saying that the world was created the day I was born. Anything that appears to have happened before 1976 is only that way because it's what the divine being wanted us to believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by commiecat

I agreed with your third point. :)

We don't know exactly how everything started, but we can prove certain theories wrong. The world wasn't created 10k years ago as far as I'm concerned and the deus ex machina explanation is as silly to me as saying that the world was created the day I was born. Anything that appears to have happened before 1976 is only that way because it's what the divine being wanted us to believe.

---

Fair enough. Silly to you? Certainly. However, it still all boils down to what you believe. Both sides of this believes something, and I find it as silly to think something came from nothing and systems as complex as we witness were the result of some grand coincidence as I do to think a creator did it...

But at least we aren't being disrespectful to each other.