How is creationism DISPROVED?

sabastious

It is disproven. But let's start another thread, because this one is being yanked off track again. Creationism/evolution always deserves its own thread. Thank you. - NC

Here is the definition I am using for Creationism:

The universe was created by an intelligent being.

How is this disproved (i.e FALSE)?

false

Adjective:

Not according with truth or fact; incorrect.
Not according with rules or law.

-Sab

NewChapter

I think you may be confusing Creationism with Theistic Evolution. Cofty had a very detailed thread on the difference, and it was very helpful to me.

Creationism, Intellegent Design, as laid out in Genesis, even if you allow for longer than 6 days, has been falsified.

Theistic Evolution, which accepts what science offers, but believes that it was all set in motion by a creator who then let nature take its course, had not been falsified.

sabastious

I think you may be confusing Creationism with Theistic Evolution.

This is my thread, and I gave my definitions. Please stay on topic.

-Sab

sabastious

Please, someone, disprove this:

The universe was created by an intelligent being.

For the record here is Cofty's thread NC is referring to on Theistic Evolution.

-Sab

cofty

First explain specifically what role you think the intelligent being played in the history of life, the universe and everything.

Otherwise we will waste time answering a question you didn't ask.

Christ Alone

Sorry, sab. Creationism is a very well defined term that can't be redefined.

cre·a·tion·ism

[ kree- ey -sh uh -niz- uh m ] Show IPA noun 1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created , substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed. 2. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, especially in the first chapter of Genesis. ----------- It is generally the belief that creation took place in 6 literal 24 hour days, and took place exactly how the Bible stated. The arguments towards creationism are not always valid, however, due to a misunderstanding that many have towards it. Creationism attempts to answer many supposed problems that are made against the idea. Answers in Genesis is one of the most well known groups that attempts to uphold creationism as true. They are believers in a young earth that originated only 6000 years ago. They use ID (which is different from creationism) and use it's resources to support the biblical creationist point of view. But they also reject ID for failing to mention the Christan God and the age of the earth as they see it. One of the problems creationism attempt to answer is the "distant starlight" issue. If the universe was only created 6000 years ago, then how are we seeing light that is millions or billions of light years away? Their answer is that God possibily created light "enroute". Or, they hold, that the speed of light was faster in the past and is now slowing down. This is what they refer to as c-decay. Answers in Genesis, however, rejects both of those views and instead prefers the model proposed by Russell Humphreys called "White Hole Cosmology". This requires the view that the Milky Way lies near the center of the universe, which AiG believes is supported by quantized redshifts. Many creationists, and nearly all secular scientists reject this model. Sorry to go off on this, but creationism is a very specific branch and cannot be confused with mere belief in God or a creator.

Christ Alone

First explain specifically what role you think the intelligent being played in the history of life, the universe and everything.

I'll give my own pitiful shot at this. I believe that an intelligent being would have been the original cause for the effect. IF the Big Bang is the correct model for the universes expantion, there would have had to be an inital cause. I know that many now are saying that the universe may be eternal and there have been infinite Big Bangs, but I see that a bit as a cop out. It avoids the need for an initial cause.

P.S - Your Douglas Adams reference was not lost on me Cofty.

sabastious

Creationism, Intellegent Design, as laid out in Genesis, even if you allow for longer than 6 days, has been falsified.

OK, so no takers on the disproving yet. I will clear this "6 day" misconception up. The 6 days mentioned in Genesis 1 are cycles of time that are not required to be of equal value. Since the Torah and the I CHING used the same, or similar, methodology in their creation consider what the Wilhelm Baynes translation has to say of the 1st Hexagram of the Creative:

Since there is only one heaven, the doubling of the trigram Ch'ien, of which heaven is the image, indicates the movement of heaven. One complete revolution of heaven makes a  day , and the repetition of the trigram means that each day is followed by another. This creates the idea of time. Since it is the same heaven moving with untiring power, there is also created the idea of duration both in and beyond time, a movement that never stops nor slackens, just as one day follows another in an unending course. This duration in time is the image of the power inherent in the Creative. 
I CHING 1

The 1st Hexagram consists of six unbroken lines. The 1st chapter of Genesis consists of 6 creative "days." Both systems were constructed to explain the passage of time. Each "day" is actually just a creative cycle with a preconceived result. Therefore the first day doesn't have the be equal to the second day etc. Because of this mysterious explanation of Time, we should not be so quick to invalidate the text with known scientific fact.

-Sab

sabastious

Sorry, sab. Creationism is a very well defined term that can't be redefined.

My thread, my definitions. You are off topic.

-Sab

rather be in hades

hmmm i'd say the history of worship and religion might have a little something to say about this...

How is creationism DISPROVED?

false

cre·a·tion·ism

Share this