BS: Is there any merit to creationism?

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 04:19 PM

Well, I guess most did/do. But then, that doesn't mean they always will. I mean, until veryveryveryveryvery recently, ALL states, nations, whevs, had capital punishment too. Now only the nasty ones we have to pretend aren't all that nasty coz it would be [whisper it racist [the unspeakable!], and anyhow they've got the oil, still do.

~M~

Oh yes - & America. SSSSSHHH!

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 04:10 PM

All peoples and all cultures have a basic belief in gods or God

ALL peoples? Really?

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 03:26 PM

How long 'was' the 'Big Bang'?....is it 'done' yet?..maybe tomorrow, huh?...but then, 'tomorrow is another day'.....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 02:54 PM

How long 'was' the 'Big Bang'?....is it 'done' yet?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: pdq
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 02:48 PM

All peoples and all cultures have a basic belief in gods or God, even if He is just called the Great Spirit.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 02:22 PM

So the text OF THE BIBLE does NOT support the 24 hour solar day in Genesis

You don't say...

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 02:20 PM

No GregF. YOU are the shit around here.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 02:19 PM

http://www.oldearth.org/The%20Hebrew%20Word%20Yom%20Used%20with%20a%20Number%20in%20Genesis%201%20-%20distribution.pdf



So the text OF THE BIBLE does NOT support the 24 hour solar day in Genesis.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 02:19 PM

some cause, which can be labeled "God" ( or George, or Bruce, or Musket)

Or bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 02:02 PM

"Also, religious folk don't seem to understand the scientists feel the same wonder and awe that they do, that in our own way we too are looking for meaning and understanding but do so by using our own innate curiosity."

I imagine you could find some "religious folk" who would see it that way. A lot more, I would estimate, who wouldn't. Some of them scientists, for that matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 01:54 PM

Musket,

SOMETHING has to trigger the Big Bang.

If it is stable, it has to be set off- THAT push is from "God".

If it is unstable, than the less than stable configuration that Bangs had to come from somewhere-either Creation by "God", or the collapse of a previous cycle. But that just pushes it back.


MY OPINION is that there is a cycle, with Bangs and collapses ad infinitum. I DO NOT HAVE, nor claim to have definitive evidence either way. I can see an argument that, IF IT IS NOT INFINITE, there has to be some cause, which can be labeled "God" ( or George, or Bruce, or Musket)

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: frogprince
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 01:46 PM

Musket; is there developed theory to negate the possibility that there was a cycle including time before the latest Bang, and that that time ended at the point of the Bang and was replaced by the beginning of time as we know it?

(Don't bother to tell me I'm out of my depth here; I don't even suspect that I have any depth regarding any of this.)

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 01:44 PM

The origin of the Bible is in stories passed down from someone who claimed to have been informed by "God".

I do NOT claim they were correct or accurate, but IF they had been told the 2010CE version in 2010BCE, I suspect that ( with the translation of photon to light) "God said…" would have been what they got out of it.

++ I ++ do not claim that creationism is CORRECT: ONLY that there can be an argument made that it represents the best explanation AT THE TIME, based on what they knew. Is today's science any more than that?





" How did the author of Genesis obtain accurate knowledge,in the language of his or anyone else's time, of this kind of data."

AT THE TIME, to get the word of an oracle, or "hear God", would have been an accepted means of determining "truth". I MAKE NO CLAIMS as to the accuracy of what they heard, or interpreted.


AS I STATED, to believe in Creationism TODAY based on the present Bible, rather than the far more accurate ( but still imperfect) scientifically determined facts of the universe ( God's Word) is to believe in the word of Man( the translation of the interpreted memories of someone trying to understand more than they can comprehend) over the word of God( (The facts as far as we can determine them).

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Musket
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 01:31 PM

So... Call the Big Bang an act of God and as everything needs to be called something, you have God.

I could run with that, same as using the "God did it" as a colloquial way of saying we haven't got a decent working hypothesis for something yet.

But do that... And it doesn't half set some hares running. Superstition requires lack of rational thought to be effective. Call something God and you aren't doing them any favours encouraging the buggers.

Beardedbruce. Just two things need tidying up in my opinion. You assert that Big Bang is cyclic. The evidence base for this is far more hypothetical than Big Bang per se. Your need for a priori assumes something prior to Big Bang, yet our best estimate to date puts time itself as a product of Big Bang, so there was nothing before, no need for any priori. There was no prior.

If you need something prior, make it prior to something other than Big Bang.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: frogprince
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 01:22 PM

BeardedBruce: Granting you, for the purpose of discussion, complete flexibility as to the meaning of the word translated "day" in Genesis:
No human was there to remember the creation; man had no scientific tools with which to theorize about the creation process. How did the author of Genesis obtain accurate knowledge,in the language of his or anyone else's time, of this kind of data.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 12:59 PM

I disagree with YOUR definition of God- that is not what I mean when I refer to God.

God is the INITIAL cause of the universe- NO further interaction is required.

Even the cyclic big bang requires an a priori. If the mono bloc is stable, then what causes it to expand, and where did it come from? If it is unstable, where did it come from?

At some point, it goes beyond the realm of physics and becomes metaphysics (BY DEFINITION)

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 12:51 PM

All depends on your definition of God, doesn't it?

I'd say God is pretty well defined elsewhere without me having a definition too. God was humanity's imaginary friend before we grew up and put him away with all the other childish things. The religious retards still imagine he's there though - telling them to do unspeakable things & harbour unspeakable thoughts. His kingdom is that of Metaphor - believers do the concept, and other humans, great wrong by taking it literally.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 12:51 PM

day (dā)
n.
…
6.
a. A specific, characteristic period in one's lifetime: In Grandmother's day, skirts were long.
b. A period of opportunity or prominence: Every defendant is entitled to a day in court. That child will have her day.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
7. A period of time in history; an era: We studied the tactics used in Napoleon's day. The day of computer science is well upon us.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

8. days Period of life or activity: The sick cat's days will soon be over.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 12:49 PM

An Earth day is approximately 86,400 seconds, with or without the flashlight.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 12:49 PM

All depends on your definition of God, doesn't it?

I'd say God is pretty well defined elsewhere without me having a definition too. God was humanity's imaginary friend before we grew up and put him away with all the other childish things. The religious retards still imagine he's there though - telling them to do unspeakable things & harbour unspeakable thoughts. His kingdom is that of Metaphor - believers do the concept, and other humans, great wrong by taking it literally.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 12:25 PM

If on the FOURTH DAY, in Genesis, 'God made the sun'....how long were the 'days' before the sun came into being??

Maybe ALL your figurings are off!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: frogprince
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 12:00 PM

Still trying to pin down what you are postulating (while wondering why I'm trying). What I'm getting now is that, somewhere around 4024 years ago (Yes, that is as credible a date as anyone has for the first written version) someone wrote down, within the available language of his time, what God then or at some unknowable time revealed about the process of creation.

When God revealed all this, was it in a deep, resonant voice? Or, did He cause someone to see it all in a dream? Or did He plug a USB cord into someone's ear?

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 11:59 AM

All depends on your definition of God, doesn't it?




God is Truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 11:51 AM

1) Even the EARLIEST written copies were 1. written down long after the original enlightenment by God of the original person 2. filtered throughout the understanding and language of a specific people and culture.

Er - no. It was ALL MADE UP BY HUMAN BEINGS. As was GOD. We made it all up for comfort in the darkness of our ignorance because that's what human beings do. When we don't know, we tell stories. When we do know, we consign the stories to mythology.

2) Both say the same thing, WITHIN THE LIMITATIONS OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE TIME.

What idiocy is this? They DO NOT say the same thing at all. One is a made up story about a fictitious creator. The other is an interpretation of available scientific data in which there is no creator, nor any need of one. All Gods and religions are inventions of human culture. Science is the discovery of universal truth. Best not confuse the two.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 11:49 AM

Not true. The "god said" version assumes a thinking and powerful cause.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 11:31 AM

Circa 2010 CE:
"In the most common models the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. Approximately 10−37 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the universe grew exponentially.[25] After inflation stopped, the universe consisted of a quark–gluon plasma, as well as all other elementary particles.[26] Temperatures were so high that the random motions of particles were at relativistic speeds, and particle–antiparticle pairs of all kinds were being continuously created and destroyed in collisions. At some point an unknown reaction called baryogenesis violated the conservation of baryon number, leading to a very small excess of quarks and leptons over antiquarks and antileptons—of the order of one part in 30 million. This resulted in the predominance of matter over antimatter in the present universe.[27]
The universe continued to decrease in density and fall in temperature, hence the typical energy of each particle was decreasing. Symmetry breaking phase transitions put the fundamental forces of physics and the parameters of elementary particles into their present form.[29] After about 10−11 seconds, the picture becomes less speculative, since particle energies drop to values that can be attained in particle physics experiments. At about 10−6 seconds, quarks and gluons combined to form baryons such as protons and neutrons. The small excess of quarks over antiquarks led to a small excess of baryons over antibaryons. The temperature was now no longer high enough to create new proton–antiproton pairs (similarly for neutrons–antineutrons), so a mass annihilation immediately followed, leaving just one in 1010 of the original protons and neutrons, and none of their antiparticles. A similar process happened at about 1 second for electrons and positrons. After these annihilations, the remaining protons, neutrons and electrons were no longer moving relativistically and the energy density of the universe was dominated by photons (with a minor contribution from neutrinos)."



Circa 2010 BCE:
"And God said "Let there be light. And there was Light.""


Both say the same thing, WITHIN THE LIMITATIONS OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE TIME.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: frogprince
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 11:26 AM

Okay, Bearded Bruce; so maybe if we could recover the Genesis account, just as it was before being retold orally for a few billion years, then written down and mistranslated for thousands of years, we would have...

...an accurate account (in the language of it's time) of man's memory of what the Big Bang was like.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 11:02 AM

frogprince,

So you insist on only that meaning? Isn't my childhood the morning of my life, and my old age it's evening?

I have never said that the use of those many-times mistranslated words are all equal- a "year" can be whatever someone wants it to be, - A season, 12 cycles of the moon.

Genesis is "literal" ONLY in that it is the translation of the recollection of what was told to the ancestors of the original writer by those who listened to the human words of the person "enlightened" by God.

To believe that over the direct observation of God's universe is to accept a thousand errors for every one that science, in it's less than perfect state, allows for a time.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Musket
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 10:56 AM

Joe. Who are the doctrine filled people who claim science as a certainty?

Perhaps if you see them, you might inform them of Mudcat where science is discussed as best knowledge till proved otherwise.

Not an easy concept for those who think the bible is historical fact, but the rest of us seem to have a grasp of the scientific PROCESS as opposed to religious RESULT.

When you say "they" have beliefs, you may be correct, but the mental leap to belief in "science" is to truly misunderstand people. We have many people learned in branches of science on these threads including a smattering of relevant PhDs.

Try not to prejudge people who refuse to let superstition interfere with reality. Religion as a comfort is fine when applied to the minds of some humans. But the mass involved in the brains of religious humans is about as close to zero as you can measure when putting it up to the universe. Even if you include all the bricks in Guildford Cathedral.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 10:56 AM

One MIGHT make said argument, but it would still be nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 10:54 AM

"In the most common models the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. Approximately 10−37 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the universe grew exponentially.[25] After inflation stopped, the universe consisted of a quark–gluon plasma, as well as all other elementary particles.[26] Temperatures were so high that the random motions of particles were at relativistic speeds, and particle–antiparticle pairs of all kinds were being continuously created and destroyed in collisions. At some point an unknown reaction called baryogenesis violated the conservation of baryon number, leading to a very small excess of quarks and leptons over antiquarks and antileptons—of the order of one part in 30 million. This resulted in the predominance of matter over antimatter in the present universe.[27]
The universe continued to decrease in density and fall in temperature, hence the typical energy of each particle was decreasing. Symmetry breaking phase transitions put the fundamental forces of physics and the parameters of elementary particles into their present form.[29] After about 10−11 seconds, the picture becomes less speculative, since particle energies drop to values that can be attained in particle physics experiments. At about 10−6 seconds, quarks and gluons combined to form baryons such as protons and neutrons. The small excess of quarks over antiquarks led to a small excess of baryons over antibaryons. The temperature was now no longer high enough to create new proton–antiproton pairs (similarly for neutrons–antineutrons), so a mass annihilation immediately followed, leaving just one in 1010 of the original protons and neutrons, and none of their antiparticles. A similar process happened at about 1 second for electrons and positrons. After these annihilations, the remaining protons, neutrons and electrons were no longer moving relativistically and the energy density of the universe was dominated by photons (with a minor contribution from neutrinos)."

"And God said "Let there be light.""

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: frogprince
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 10:50 AM

"The words in the Old Testament have the meaning of 6, 7 or 8."

The days in the Genesis creation myth are defined as a morning and evening which constitutes a day; it didn't take the earth a billion years to rotate. The ages of the patriarchs are counted off in years; if those "years" meant eons, the stated ages would be that much further from real possibility by magnitudes. It takes desperately wishful thinking to make Genesis a literal historical account in the language of any period of history.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 08:56 AM

the written words of human beings as the truth- Where the written words are the Bible.

Even the EARLIEST written copies were

1. written down long after the original enlightenment by God of the original person
2. filtered throughout the understanding and language of a specific people and culture.

Science is the art of trying to understand God's Word in the facts of the universe, rather than accepting a translation by humans of a human's interpretation of what someone generations before had understood God to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 08:47 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Is the universe less than 10k years old?
From: beardedbruce - PM
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 09:02 AM

If the year indicated is the standard solar year, the answer is


NO.



If the days counted to add up the age include the "days" in the old testament that actually translates as closer to "a period of time", and those "days" are of variable length, up to billions of solar years, then the answer is


One might make an argument that it is.



day (dā)
n.
1. The period of light between dawn and nightfall; the interval from sunrise to sunset.
2.
a. The 24-hour period during which the earth completes one rotation on its axis.
b. The period during which a celestial body makes a similar rotation.
3. Abbr. D One of the numbered 24-hour periods into which a week, month, or year is divided.
4. The portion of a 24-hour period that is devoted to work, school, or business: an eight-hour day; a sale that lasted for three days.
5. A 24-hour period or a portion of it that is reserved for a certain activity: a day of rest.
6.
a. A specific, characteristic period in one's lifetime: In Grandmother's day, skirts were long.
b. A period of opportunity or prominence: Every defendant is entitled to a day in court. That child will have her day.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
7. A period of time in history; an era: We studied the tactics used in Napoleon's day. The day of computer science is well upon us.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

8. days Period of life or activity: The sick cat's days will soon be over.


The words in the Old Testament have the meaning of 6, 7 or 8.

Thus the Bible could be an accurate explanation IN THE WORDS of the time of the big bang, and the subsequent evolution of the universe and life herein.

The current problem is that "Creationists" as presented here do not look at the source material (God's Word) but at their own favorite INTERPRETATION of it. The KJV is a great work of literature- but a flawed translation of a flawed translation of a flawed translation.

The question is whether to take God's Word ( facts as shown by the real universe) or the written words of human beings as the truth- Where the written words are the Bible.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Stu
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 08:37 AM

Creationism has zero merit.

Also, religious folk don't seem to understand the scientists feel the same wonder and awe that they do, that in our own way we too are looking for meaning and understanding but do so by using our own innate curiosity.

I would also suggest religious folk don't aren't exclusively the ones contemplating the numinous and mysteries of existence; as a scientist I also seek the fundamental truths addressed in the visual arts, poetry, culture and importantly music.

I am also spiritual, but my beliefs in this realm I try to ground in science. I was raised CoE, went to methodist and free churches, investigated the occult and paganism, engage in buddhism for a while, and in truth science and art are the only things that I have found that seem to address the corporeal and unknown nature of the universe.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: andrew e
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 08:35 AM

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/bang.php

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 08:29 AM

finding truth in the poetry of Celtic and Teutonic and Greek and Roman and Egyptian and Native American and Asian and Christian and Hebrew and Muslim and other systems of belief.

Finding truth and persisting things to be true are two different things. There are thousands of creation myths (apart from the two quite contradictory ones in Genesis!) each one part of thousands of different storytelling traditions. Not a single one of these is any way TRUE, on the contrary, though we might pause to ponder when one chimes in with known scientific data (i.e. True in the Literal Knowable Falsifiable Demonstrable Peer Reviewed sense) like the ancient Hindu cosmology as touched upon in the particularly mind-scrambling episode of Carl Sagan's Cosmos I was watching last night...

Carl Sagan on Hindu Cosmology

We can know these things. It's what being human is all about. This is why religion is essentially inhumane as it confuses what is objectively True and concerns us all, with subjective truth, which only concerns one of us - a you or a me - and proceeds to feed it into the impressionable brains of children. TRUE reverberates in the background radiation of the Big Bang which pre-dates humanity by billions of years, and will still be reverberating billions of years after we've gone. Truth, OTOH, is what we choose to eat for breakfast, read on the toilet or put on our car stereos on our drive to work.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: sciencegeek
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 03:29 AM

If by the term "creationism", you are referring to the belief held by a select number that insist that a literal interpretation of Genesis reveals that the earth is less than 7 thousand years old, evolution is some kind of false doctrine and that their beliefs have some kind of scientific validity... than I am forced to say that not only does it it lack merit, but it is actually dangerous.   

I say dangerous because thirty years ago when I attended a national convention of biology teachers it was quite evident that religious doctrine was causing textbooks to become "watered down" by publishers to avoid being boycotted by major book buyers. The Texas Book Depository - the one involved in the Kennedy assassination- is the central purchaser of school books in Texas. So if a Christian fundamentalist attitude runs that authority, they wield tremendous power. And trust me, they do.

Creationism is just one expression of religious zealotry... the Inquisition was another... as was the Russian purges of Jews. It may involve less violence, but it is oppressive to freedom of thought and speech.

What preceded the big bang... I have no clue, and I leave it at that.
But I do know biology, ecology and evolutionary theory, and there is no way I will accept or tolerate their attempts to deny facts and replace them with their absurd assertions.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 11:32 PM

That's a little difficult for the doctrinaire adherents of 'science' to accept, Kevin - the fact that even THEY have beliefs....in what they perceive as science. True scientists know that they have theories that have varying levels of proof, but that there are other possibilities. And one of those possibilities is that theories can collapse.

These doctrinaire adherents of 'science' claim certainty, just as the doctrinaire adherents of a literal biblical view of creation claim certainty. The only certainty I have, is that both of them are certainly wrong.

The rest of us have some level of doubt, some acknowledgement that we don't know as much as we'd like to know - which means that there is mystery in much of what we see and wonder at the further discoveries that will unfold. Some of us have a spiritual perspective on this. We respect and accept the discoveries of science, but still seek a meaning behind it all - knowing that we will never find an absolute answer. We may or may not see value in tradition and ritual and myth in the exploration of the Unknown, but we accept and respect that there are many avenues in the quest for understanding.

In the exploration of the Unknown, many of us have gained respect for ancient myths and traditions, finding truth in the poetry of Celtic and Teutonic and Greek and Roman and Egyptian and Native American and Asian and Christian and Hebrew and Muslim and other systems of belief.

I think the greatest thing we can know, is that we don't know very much - and that it's important to respect and learn from the way others see things.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 05:54 PM

scientific beliefs"...don't exist

That's what you believe, of course, Steve, or you wouldn't have written it. Is there conceivably a contradiction in that?

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 05:13 PM

Having gone to school before thr 'big bang' was in serious contention as a theory, I have followed the debate for over 50 years.,,,close to 60. The most popular idea back then was 'continuous creation, where atoms of hydrogen just kept 'popping into existence' and than getting disturbed and knocked about until they joined others.'

Better? Worse? Neither.... we could still argue where one atom came from, as well as where a singularity cane from..... and whether some infinite intelligence **decided** where to create an atom.

What we have now is better instruments and computers to look more directly at stars & galaxies and even detect & measure stuff we barely dreamed of 60 years ago, Much of this new data demands new and/or revised theories to integrate it, and pushes (or drags) us in certain directions. We are essentially trying to describe the relationships, using complex math and super-computers, between the various news observations.
The more information we have, the more certain basic lines of thought rise to the top,....except for creationist themes which have essentially NO new data. What they have is the assertion that "God did it".... and because, as MtheGM says."I dunno... and YOU dunno", we can't prove them wrong, it IS the case that creationism is irrelevant EXCEPT as a personal opinion. Merit? Well... it provides a hobby. If I were a betting man, I bet a large sum that we will never find any 'ultimate' answer....but I would also bet that YOUNG EARTH creatinoism will gradually fade more into the backwaters as real *evidence* overwhelms it

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: michaelr
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 04:55 PM

Evidence here.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 04:14 PM

it isn't in any way in conflict with scientific beliefs about biological or stellar evolution,

Say whut?

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 04:08 PM

Never mind Jack's silly title Musket.
McGrath said, "What mainstream Christians, and others, mean when they talk about God as Creator is much more complicated, and since it isn't in any way in conflict with scientific beliefs about biological or stellar evolution,"

Steve reposted, "Au contraire. It is absolutely in conflict with science (er, not "scientific beliefs", which don't exist). That is the argument of the pusillanimous religionist who knows at the bottom of his heart that "there must be something in this science malarkey". But you can't have your cake and eat it. If you think that "God" created everything, whether in 4004BC or billions of years ago, you are insulting the scientific process, which must be predicated on evidence alpone, which is what as a God-squadder you have not got. Simple as that."

My post was to Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 03:53 PM

As a member of the DILLIGAFF group, it shouldn't matter to you if the rest of the world chooses to continue trying to find out about the origins of the Universe(s).

All you need to know is that somebody IS trying to ascertain the answer to YOUR question, and one day will succeed.

Without the scientific work you dismiss as unworthy of your attention, that would certainly NEVER happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 03:26 PM

Models of WHAT, Jack? I am not remotedly interested in all this fatuous speculation about the quadrillion-trillion-billion-million-googol·+·1 things that might have happened in the microsecond after the big bloody bang. I just want to know what it was that went big bloody bang in the first place; what it was, where it was; and whence it came. Till anyone can answer those questions, there is no point so far as I can see in engagement with any further discourse. Sod the models & the multiverses!

Ben Elton has a character in one of his novels say that apparently these are questions that only stupid people ask. That's OK. So I'll be stupid; fine. Now can any of the non-stupid answer, please.

~M~

Elizabeth-Ann
Said to her Nan
'Please will you tell me how God began'

A.A Milne Now We Are Six

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 02:36 PM

What went Big Bang?

There are a lot of models, but I like this best, maybe because I love lava lamps...

New Big Bang evidence also hints that we may exist in a multiverse

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 01:06 PM

Joe Offer, 26 Mar, said all this shit has been discussed to death long ago.
Mark me ditto.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 11:57 AM

merit-schmerit
creationism-schmeationism
bigbang-schmigbang

I never got a satisfactory answer -- or any answer actually IIRC -- on a thread that I OPd a few years ago that ran & ran, simply titled "What went Big Bang?". Till someone can answer that to the satisfaction of anybody whatsoever, all is vanity & vexation of spirit. {Ecclesiastes}

Let us conjugate the essential verb ~~~

I dunno
thou dunno
he/she dunno
we dunno
you dunno
they dunno

Ta·ra

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 11:50 AM

Appropriation of the Big Bang by an "orthodox physicist." I think you have a triple oxymoron going there.

SRS