Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is my understanding that creationists believe that God built the universe and everything that is in it in six days....How then do creationists explain this?
Quote:
Most galaxies are notoriously slow at producing stars. The Milky Way makes only about one or two annually. So when astronomers discovered one that produces more than 800 per year, they were rightfully amazed.
It is my understanding that creationists believe that God built the universe and everything that is in it in six days....How then do creationists explain this?
It is my understanding that creationists believe that God built the universe and everything that is in it in six days....How then do creationists explain this?
I'm not entirely sure this is a good argument against Creationism. While I personally would not, theologians can easily counter this with the idea of Creatio Continua:
The term creatio continua refers to God's continuing creative activity throughout the history of the universe. In a sense, most theologians accept creatio continua, since creation is the dependence of the whole of space-time on God. But more traditional views hold that because God is timeless and immutable, there is only one divine creative act, which originates the whole of space-time from first to last. Those who speak of creatio continua think of creation taking place in many successive acts, partly in response to events in time. Thus, at any particular time God's creation has not been completed, and the future is partly open, in some theological views, even for God.
(Keith Ward, Creatio Continua)
In other words, I don't think the production of more stars will be much of a barrier to Creationist thinking. After all, they can easily point to natural processes that they believe have been set in motion by God (whether it be the creation of new planetary bodies, species, etc.). Evolutionary theory has been accepted by many Creationists under Theistic Evolution, which can technically fall under the theological idea of Creatio Continua.
With all that said, is this a problem for Fundamentalist Creationists? Perhaps Theistic Evolution is, but I'm not so sure Creatio Continua would be a problem. After all, Genesis claims:
God had finished, on the seventh day, his work that he had made,
and then he ceased, on the seventh day, from all his work that he had made.
(Genesis 2:2 SB Fox)
but this only claims that God rested from the work that he "had" made (up until that point). It does not preclude the idea of further creations, etc.
Are you sure that the Bible says that God built the universe and everything in it in six days?
Just saying. How could an eternal God create anything, so wouldn't you think the universe has always been and will always be?
You must be referring to evolutionist, but they believe the universe was made instantaneously. Of course it was all random so obviously the 7 days makes no sense seeing that everything is random. .
As far as the seven days, you might consider taking the distance of the earth from the sun, the distance that the earth travels in its orbit around the sun during one rotation on it axis. Then divide the total distance of the earth's orbit around the sun and and you might find it comes to 364. So do you think an eternal being needs rest-LOL. Add that day the of rest to the sum and what do you think the answer is. Then, ask yourself, how many days does it take the earth to make one full rotation around the sun?
It is my understanding that creationists believe that God built the universe and everything that is in it in six days....How then do creationists explain this?
Well, not ALL Creationists buy into the six-day Creation Story as portrayed in the Book of Genesis. It's really only the Christian Fundamentalists and biblical generalists who believe that every single story and account in the bible is actually historical and factual. LOL--no mater how absurd and unbelievable it is. You know, like the Sis Day Creation.
A lot of more open-minded and rational Christians, the moderates and the liberal--or Progressive--Christians, understand that, like so much of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, the Genesis Creation story, as well as the Garden of Eden deal and The Fall, are only allegorical tales. never intended to be taken as literal truth. But instead, like much of Mythos, was intended to try and convey a Message or Ideology of the author and His faith. His Theology and philosophy. This is what Myth does: teaches timeless lessons by painting word pictures. Myth does NOT equal History. Or fact.
Still, you're correct in that far too many Christians ARE biblical literalists. I'm guessing about 40-50% in my country. I would guess that maybe one-third of all Christians in the USA believe in the Genesis six-day creation. Maybe more. This alarms me. I have always equated belief in that as being equal to being afflicted with a mild form pf psychosis. Or at the very least, delusion. It's a deal breaker to me for considering that person to be fully sane and logical and trusted. For example, I could never vote for a man who was a biblical literalist, or a six-day Creationist. Or a young-Earther (those who think despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that the Earth is only 6000 years-old, instead of over four Billion years old.)
In fact, I just royally pi$$ed off a co-worker of mine who is a biblical literalist and a young-earther. Can oy believe this guy is a computer science instructor at our college. And electronics whiz. He was telling me how a friend of his--and agnostic like me--was suprised to learn that Kevin, my Christian friend, was a Believer, being as he is a science and tech guy.
So Kevin says to me, "Yeah he couldnt' believe that a man of science like me is a Biblical literalist."
So I go, "Well, sorry, Kev, but I can't consider you a logical man of science when you hold those beliefs about the Bible and the young earth. I think you're just a guy with a huge blind spot in your outlook and understanding of the World, and are still delusional. But a delusional guy who just happens to know something of Computers."
I'm sorry, this might have been a little harsh. He for sure didn't like it. But you know what? I don't care. I am sick to death of the smugness of these folks who are brainwashed and deluded and paradoxically are certain they are right about God and these things. When in reality they have huge character flaws: spending their entire lives believing in a Superstition and an Invisible BFF they call God.
In fact, I just royally pi$$ed off a co-worker of mine who is a biblical literalist and a young-earther. Can oy believe this guy is a computer science instructor at our college. And electronics whiz. He was telling me how a friend of his--and agnostic like me--was suprised to learn that Kevin, my Christian friend, was a Believer, being as he is a science and tech guy.
So Kevin says to me, "Yeah he couldnt' believe that a man of science like me is a Biblical literalist."
So I go, "Well, sorry, Kev, but I can't consider you a logical man of science when you hold those beliefs about the Bible and the young earth. I think you're just a guy with a huge blind spot in your outlook and understanding of the World, and are still delusional. But a delusional guy who just happens to know something of Computers."
I'm sorry, this might have been a little harsh. He for sure didn't like it. But you know what? I don't care. I am sick to death of the smugness of these folks who are brainwashed and deluded and paradoxically are certain they are right about God and these things. When in reality they have huge character flaws: spending their entire lives believing in a Superstition and an Invisible BFF they call God.
Yes, that was a LOT harsh.
One can be perfectly proficient, competent and logical in a computer science field, and never choose to apply those same critical thinking skills to one's faith. It happens all the time. Heck, Isaac Newton wrote more on the Book of Revelations and alchemy than on what we would call "science". But that's besides the point. The point is that not everyone uses their critical thinking skills and applies them to every facet of their lives.
I think the smug person here is the one who declares that his coworker has "huge character flaws" and then loudly tells him that he must be a scientific idiot and then admits that he doesn't care that he offended him. I mean... JESUS. You could have had a dialogue with this person, but now you just look like a typical angry dismissive "New Atheist" - and that's not going to accomplish anything.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You could have had a dialogue with this person, but now you just look like a typical angry dismissive "New Atheist" - and that's not going to accomplish anything.
