Evolution and Creationism

[KLP]

As an example, it has been shown that particles can come in and out of existence within a vacuum......or, "pop in and out of nothing". So......what else that we think we know isn't true, or is partially true, or is beyond our scope of understanding?

Well yes, virtual particles are interesting but not exactly the much coveted pond of ooze in which obviously all life forms. And of course there is much that is not yet discovered or known.

Virtual particles just demonstrate that something actually can come from nothing, destroying a common argument of the YEC.

Yes, that is the hope of the wishful thinking...however virtual particles are really parts of particles in a temporary state and if Ivy wants to discuss quantum physics and quarks in a vacuum and how gravity is able to effect an attraction in a vacuum then that is fine...maybe a new thread? But the "vacuum of space" is still within the Universe...so we are talking about at best things coming into existence within the Universe...which is what Creationist already believe happened.

[KLP]

the 13 billion year old ooze pond

KLP, is this all you know about hypotheses on the origin of life?

You mean other than God Creating it? Yes...the ooze pond is the scientific consensus. It is called abiogenesis...and the forming of oceans is the explanation. The ocean thing was later refined or recast as primordial soup. Would you prefer soup or ooze? It is all the same...do you just want a prettier name for the belief in life forming accidentally in a body of fluid?

[BabesNotHot]

The answer is no...but this is part of the disparagement that is being discussed...it is this claim, assertion, and/or insulation that belief in Creation is damaging and detrimental and would be tantamount to child abuse to teach anything other than the 13 billion year old ooze pond to young minds.

But I don’t think most people have a problem with someone saying that God created the universe. Scientist haven’t disproved that and I’m not sure they will ever be able to disprove that statement. And that’s why there are scientist that believe that God created the universe and can still contribute to the science community. Evolution and the age of the earth doesn’t dispute creationism.

The specific problem that conflicts with the science community is when people believe that the earth is 8000 years old because they interpret the passage in Genesis literally. This is where many people are frustrated because there are tons of evidence of the earth being a lot older than that.

[Ivy]

This thread is reminding me of those "Does God Exist" programs of the 70s - 80s.

[KLP]

Or like a finding Big Foot or a ghosts show of today...I heard an echo. I felt maybe the air move. I saw a smudge in the mud. But you never see Big Foot or a ghost. And that is how all this evolution stuff and the ocean soup churning out sea monkeys...you just never see it happening but people keep watching the shows. What really changes in life if they find Big Foot?

[Shrubbery]

So no BH..I do not need "evidence"...I am asking is there anything specifically that cannot be performed due to a belief in Creation as opposed to random accident. Does a belief in ordered design and purpose really hinder a person intellectually?

Are we talking about young earth vs old earth or God-created vs. no-God? Because those are two very different topics. No one in this thread has at all suggested that belief in Creation or ordered design hinders a person intellectually. I believe God created everything and that he designed everything on purpose. I just don't believe the earth is 6000 years old.

The answer is no...but this is part of the disparagement that is being discussed...it is this claim, assertion, and/or insulation that belief in Creation is damaging and detrimental and would be tantamount to child abuse to teach anything other than the 13 billion year old ooze pond to young minds.

There was no ooze pond on earth 13 billion years ago. The universe is believed to be 13.8 billion years old, and earth is a little over 4.5 billion years old. The Milky Way galaxy wasn't even formed 13 billion years ago. So I would have a problem with any school teaching children about a 13 billion year old ooze pond.

And again, no one has disparaged CREATION. We have disparaged YOUNG EARTH, for which there is no evidence. There is loads and loads and loads of evidence that the earth is much older than 6000 years. If the Bible didn't exist, there would be no one suspecting a young earth today. And our point is that the Bible is not intended to be a science book (there aren't 4 corners on the spherical earth, so don't expect to find them even if the Bible mentions them). The Bible is intended to tell us about the nature of God. God is the Creator. And those of us who believe in God believe God used his natural laws (that he designed!) to create the universe and the earth and life on Earth. NONE of that requires a 6000 year old Earth.

[Ivy]

I don't see any disparagement.....it's just a discussion.

[Ivy]

And that is how all this evolution stuff and the ocean soup churning out sea monkeys...

I thought you didn't want anyone disparaging either view.

[zeek]

CoC doctrine, theology and crazy experiences.
A place to snark and vent about CoC doctrine and/or our experiences in the CoC. This is a place for SUPPORT and AGREEMENT only, not a place to tell someone their experience and feelings are wrong, or why we disagree with them.

[KLP]

And that is how all this evolution stuff and the ocean soup churning out sea monkeys...

I thought you didn't want anyone disparaging either view.

It was self deprecating since you asked if ooze was the entirety of my understanding...see that is insulting. But I still love you even on St V day (and ash wed)