This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Creation according to the Bible.
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
Is it possible that the universe was created as the Bible explains, in a literal manner? Is it possible it was formed from nothing in six days, approximately six thousand years ago?
Post by
322702
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
six thousand years ago, no. As for the rest ask god.
Why is that impossible?
Post by
322702
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Thror
This topic would have more "potential" if you skipped the 6000 part.
Post by
606231
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
This topic would have more potential if you skipped the 6000 part.
^
Post by
pezz
It is indeed logically possible! That doesn't mean that logical people believe it, though.
Post by
Pwntiff
It is possible. Is that how I believe it happened? No, I've sided with science when it comes to the hows and whens of the universe. Since there are many metaphors, allegories, and other non-literal passages, it could be that the accounts of Creation were written down in a way that early followers could understand. The people Genesis was originally written by and for would have no concept of slow geological processes and time frames of hundreds of thousands of years, but they would be able to understand and visualize days.
Post by
Monday
but since there is no evidence for the deity in the first place
Define "no evidence."
Post by
MyTie
we can date bones of animals to more then 3 million years ago, have a written record going back at least 8 thousand years, so unless god mode an old earth then it is impossible, but god is god and can do what god wants. Just make no sense to me why god would tell his followers one thing but show them another.I don't think a deity must explain Himself/Herself to us. Leaving out the whole "God" idea, the idea that a being with that much sheer power must leave behind an explanation for each action to us is a bit prideful.
Nevertheless, if a deity created Adam, it would seem logical that Adam were not created as a freshly fertilized egg, but instead created at the point where he would be at the optimal age for his situation. That seems to make logical sense. If that were the case, it would also make logical sense that a deity would create the universe at the correct age for supporting life, since there is no rule that a deity must create a universe as a "fresh" universe. I mean, if a being were powerful enough to create the entire universe, why not create it aged? I wouldn't expect the deity to make a malformed person, or a malformed universe, so it was apparent that it was created recently.
I'm not saying that IS the way it happened. I'm just pointing out that there are possibilities that you had perhaps not considered, or were too quick to rule out.
I don't think this thread is going to last long, mods will probably lock it, and ask you to keep it in the religion thread.This thread is very specific to one aspect of one religion. This is a topic in itself.
Post by
124027
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
Eeenope.
Technically possible, but I find it rather difficult to believe.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Azazel
I can easily see where this thread could go if a fanatical religious or atheist user should pass by..
On-topic: No. I don't think the Bible, or any other religious books should be taken literally.
Post by
OverZealous
Technically possible, but I find it rather difficult to believe.
This is also my stance on the matter.
One of the arguments against it is that you can scientifically date fossils back several million years. If one is to believe that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago, you cannot logically believe in any form of scientific dating. If you don't believe that, for example, one can date human bones to be 4,000 years old, then this argument obviously falls off.
It could of course be like you're saying, Pwntiff, that 6 days is simply a metaphor that was more easily visualized; which seems like a semi-plausible explanation.
Post by
Skreeran
It all comes back to that oh so useless observation that the universe could have been created yesterday in its present state (decaying elements and personal memories and all) and we wouldn't know the difference. Yes, its technically possible, but because its fundamentally undetectable, we might as well stick to the conclusion that the evidence suggests, so long as it is an equally viable conclusion.
Science is all about using the conclusion that requires the fewer leaps of Faith after the evidence is considered.
Post by
gamerunknown
It could of course be like you're saying, Pwntiff, that 6 days is simply a metaphor that was more easily visualized; which seems like a semi-plausible explanation.
The Biblical literalists are far more consistent on this point in that they see a contradiction between doctrine and evidence and they adhere to the doctrine. The most obvious way in which this is a neologism is the fact that the sabbath would last an era of billions of years, which was never practised since the only reasonable interpretation is of a "day" in whichever creation account of Genesis one uses.
If that were the case, it would also make logical sense that a deity would create the universe at the correct age for supporting life
Post hoc ergo propter hoc: since we exist and the universe exists, the universe exists so that we exist. This argument begins to fall apart when we consider the fact that the majority of the planet is uninhabitable by man without some artifices not available to Adam and that in ratio to the rest of the universe, the regions inhabitable by man are minute. So, we refer to "the fall": unfalsifiable.
Anyway,
this book
details evidence for evolution in an easily accessible form. I'm not sure if I have a copy to hand to summarise the arguments, but radiometric dating is explained, genetic mapping is explained, the fallacy of the missing link is explained and there's even an interesting segment on dendrochronology.
Lawrence Krauss
gives a good talk
which explains relatively modern physics and goes into how the age of the universe is calculated.
Neil deGrasse Tyson
on intellignt design.
Edit:
Define "no evidence."
Lacking in material support. Evidence is the currency through which beliefs are transmitted without coercion and those that wish for others to share a belief have the burden of providing evidence (or logical argument). One is entitled to believe what they wish beyond that, but they shouldn't expect to convince others.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
pezz
Technically possible, but I find it rather difficult to believe.
This is also my stance on the matter.
One of the arguments against it is that you can scientifically date fossils back several million years. If one is to believe that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago, you cannot logically believe in any form of scientific dating. If you don't believe that, for example, one can date human bones to be 4,000 years old, then this argument obviously falls off.
You don't have to disbelieve scientific dating. An omnipotent God could create a thing which holds the characteristics of that same thing, aged several million years.
If I could call anything into existence whenever I wanted to, could I call in humans, but only newborn humans? Or could I call into existence old men? Same principle.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.