As far as i can see, there is no fundamental problem with creationism. It's a matter of belief, you either do believe, or you don't. It's a fine theory. However, as far as i can see, the definition, the interpretation, how different people understand it, is where the problem starts.

For example: the literal interpretation of the bible. Here's a thought: if religion never existed, and science, and logic, where what people took their information from, would people be putting forward ideas, such as advocated by various persons, that the world was created in 7 days, that the world was approximately 10,000 years old, that dinosaurs walked side by side with man?

For me, creationism means that something, a higher power, a creator, started it all, and the rules, the laws of physics etc, that were created, took over from there. faith shouldn't be blind.

Yep. The real debate is SHOULD CREATIONISM BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS AS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY? The Answer is No, because Creationism is a Theological and Philosophical Theory and does not fit as a Scientific Theory because it can not be proven wrong or observed in a controlled environment, nor can any experiments be created to prove it as likely.

I believe that God is the source of everything and that all is within God. I don't believe that Creationism is a Scientific Theory or that it should be taught in Science Class.

so you're saying some being beyond the space-time continum created this? if you think about it, when the ideas in the bible were written, they were written over 2,000 years ago. they didnt have modern day technology. they didnt have flushing toilets. they didnt have electricity. they didnt have modern day knowledge of science. they were hot, hungry people who had no idea why they existed and were eager to believe in something. so charismatic salesman types of dudes went aroudn preaching to these people (prolly for free food, sexual favors, etc.). a story gets passed on and written down and you have creationism.

quote:Originally posted by dsk1231:

so charismatic salesman types of dudes went aroudn preaching to these people (prolly for free food, sexual favors, etc.). a story gets passed on and written down and you have creationism.

lol that's so me!

quote:Originally posted by bellbottoms_and_gin:

As far as i can see, there is no fundamental problem with creationism. It's a matter of belief, you either do believe, or you don't. It's a fine theory. However, as far as i can see, the definition, the interpretation, how different people understand it, is where the problem starts.

For example: the literal interpretation of the bible. Here's a thought: if religion never existed, and science, and logic, where what people took their information from, would people be putting forward ideas, such as advocated by various persons, that the world was created in 7 days, that the world was approximately 10,000 years old, that dinosaurs walked side by side with man?

For me, creationism means that something, a higher power, a creator, started it all, and the rules, the laws of physics etc, that were created, took over from there. faith shouldn't be blind.

Thats not the common interpretation of creationism though. The mainstream interpretation of creationism is the literal interpretation of the bible, where the earth was created before the stars, man before other animals, and before woman, where 2 people directly created out of nothing, and were rejected from god's land because a talking snake told them to eat a magic apple, and they listened.

Besides as said earlier you'd have to be able to prove or disprove god in order for creationism/ID to be a true scientific theory.

Bellbottoms: You would be wrong.

Creationism is the belief that the bible is literal and that God created all the 'kinds' of animals about as we see today. That a worldwide flood occured destroying all but those on a boat. That evolution is false and never occured.

You are thinking of a belief in a creator, which is perfectly fine philosophy but not science.

As far as I can tell, Creationism is just a word trying to hide religion. I'm sure there will be people trying to tell me it's non-specific and it's not just "7 Day Creationism", but really, I don't see any contemporary scientists actually talking about Creationism with anything other than contempt.

Creationism is not science. There is no accepted Creationist science, and no one is going to produce any respected Creationists in the scientific community.

I'll go back to observation and empiricism now, and let us speak no more of Creationism.

If the term creationism is in all forms limited to only a literal interpretation of the Bible then I deny it.

It may not be exclusive to Biblical interpretation, but I have never seen it argued by anyone that didn't have a religious motive.

It's certainly never argued by scientists.