# "Why I'm a creationist"

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by tim85, Jul 11, 2013.

1. ### EmmittoVIP Member

Joined:
Apr 3, 2007
Messages:
5,586
168
Trophy Points:
63
Perhaps she just needs more friends. I know plenty of people who aren't Creationists and I'd be shocked if a single one would "stomp out" upon hearing someone present was one. I mean they're not going to agree but they don't mind you believing whatever you want.
2. ### AzCatFanWell-Known Member

Joined:
Apr 9, 2007
Messages:
7,592
201
Trophy Points:
63
Know what else has a lot of zeros? Consider the amount of space it takes to create the first life on Earth? Say one cubic millimeter. Now, if life first came about in warm, ocean water, say the amount of area possible to give rise to the first life is all the water between the tropics. How many cubic millimeters of water exist between the tropics? That's a lot of zeros.

Another thing that has a lot of zeros is time. If it only takes life 1 second to form, in a year, that's 10 zeros. In 100,000 years, that's 15 zeros. If life formed sometime in a 500,000 year time frame, 16 zeros.

Now, if it takes 1 cubic millimeter and 1 second to create life, multiply the two, and that's how many zeros you have with the right time and space to create life. The number of zeros that equals the possibility of life being created now doesn't look so huge now.

Odds are funny things some times. If something happens only 1 in a million, but the conditions for that to happen are plentiful, say 1 billion potential right mixes of time and space, then you would expect to see 100 instances of your 1 in a million activity! If the time it takes for this to happen is 1 second, and the space is say somewhere on Earth, then this 1 in a million activity statistically happens several times a year!

None of this means that there isn't a creative force behind everything. That could very well be true. But evolution doesn't try and prove the force behind what started everything, just how things came to be once things were set in motion. And the probabilities behind evolution, in context of time and space, isn't much of a detraction to the theory.

Joined:
Apr 19, 2007
Messages:
22,902
388
Trophy Points:
83
Location:
Orlando, FL
Oh, this is just a new genre of bad print: "Smart media person comes out as somewhat religious, thinking its shocking even though like 80-90% of the population believes in some sort of God."
4. ### orangeblueorangeblueWell-Known Member

Joined:
Apr 8, 2007
Messages:
57,079
596
Trophy Points:
113
No, I'm sorry, that isn't what you said:

You say this as though it is otherwise explained in any observable way by science. That is not so.
5. ### lacunaWell-Known Member

Joined:
Apr 8, 2007
Messages:
8,914
324
Trophy Points:
83
Location:
Gainesville
I appreciate your response, Austin. I wasn't necessarily looking for you specifically to respond but was rather using your statement as a riff. But as you responded, why must God be a "He" or a "who" or a "someone"? Is it warranted to limit God to terms we can handle? Language is a tool but tools have limits that by definition cannot apply to Limitless Being.

Joined:
Apr 19, 2007
Messages:
22,902
388
Trophy Points:
83
Location:
Orlando, FL
Oh, I think I see the problem. I should have wrote: "nothing" must precede "something." It doesnt read as I intended, sorry for the confusion.

Joined:
Apr 8, 2007
Messages:
7,733
84
Trophy Points:
48
We are 'created' in His image. Pretty certain this was all covered in the thread about God possibly being a woman.
8. ### rivergatorWell-Known Member

Joined:
Apr 8, 2007
Messages:
31,812
367
Trophy Points:
83

same here. I know Creationists and those who aren't. I don't believe I've ever witnessed someone storming out of a restaurant or a house simply because they encountered the other side of the aisle.
Of course, it's a conversation that can easily go too far with one calling other stupid, naive or whatever. And then someone might leave. But at the mere recognition that someone believes in Creationism?

Actually, I remember as an adult meeting people who didn't believe in evolution and being very surprised. "Really?"
Maybe I just had a sheltered upbringing.
9. ### fastsixWell-Known Member

Joined:
Apr 11, 2007
Messages:
6,406
235
Trophy Points:
63
Location:
Seattle
And there's always the possibility that there are, or have been, many universes. Maybe this is the trillionth time a universe has formed, or maybe there are a trillion other universes right this instance.

If you have a trillion universes, each with trillions of planets, spanning trillions of years worth of time, it seems unlikely that at least in one instance things would happen just as they have here on Earth. And it seems even less likely that Earth is the only place where life exists.
10. ### rpmGatorWell-Known Member

Joined:
Apr 10, 2007
Messages:
12,701
155
Trophy Points:
63
We are pretty damn lucky if this was just a set of events that created all.

The water system of the sun pulling salt water from the sea, and raining fresh water on the land, is amazing in itself.

Getting sun on all parts of the earth can only happen to a sphere if it rotates and tilts to get sun on both the north and south. Yet, it doesn't heat the Antarctic which may be the most amazing of all.

The cold there gets so cold, that the brine sinks. So much so, that it creates an underwater water fall, many times bigger than Niagara.

This goes into a 2.5 mile deep channel and moves all the currents of the globe on a thousand year journey. Taking cooler water to hot places and moving that hotter water to cool places. Without any of those systems, we don't make it.

Lucky indeed.

Joined:
Aug 31, 2009
Messages:
1,835
45
Trophy Points:
48
Our luck continues when you consider all the multitude of other events that have to fall into place in order for life to exist on earth, including the precise distance from the sun. What are the odds that other planets have those same conditions?

Joined:
Aug 31, 2009
Messages:
1,835
45
Trophy Points:
48
How about 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000 power or 40,000 zeros. That would be the proverbial long shot.
13. ### tim85Well-Known Member

Joined:
Nov 3, 2009
Messages:
4,143
309
Trophy Points:
83
Location:
Jacksonville, FL
I'll have to ask the professor himself whether his analogy takes that into consideration or not, but I believe it does. For the amount of things to happen for life to occur, in general, regardless of whether it's Earth or not, I believe that was what his analogy was referring to. Even if you take the absolute billions of galaxies that out there into consideration.

Joined:
Apr 3, 2007
Messages:
5,004
1,437
Trophy Points:
113
It would be really refreshing if a lot more folks could use this same logic with climate change. I mean, for most based on the way they present their case, history consists of the last 100 years or so. Said differently, nothing like this has ever happened before.
DarthG8RV3 likes this.
15. ### AzCatFanWell-Known Member

Joined:
Apr 9, 2007
Messages:
7,592
201
Trophy Points:
63
Not really. Consider there volume of the Earth's oceans covers over 1.3 million kilometers. Convert to millimeters and you already have 12 zeros. True, this includes waters assumed to be too cold to start life, but even at 10 zeros, that's a lot of potential locations where life could have started. Then, go back to time. Remember, 1,000,000 years have 17 zeros. So, multiply space by time, and you get a number with 26 zeros.

Still not close, but our best guess is life started somewhere around 4.3 and 4.5 billion years ago. That's a plus/minus factor of 200 million years! So, multiply our number with 17 zeros by 200 million, and viola, and that's another 8 zeros, and you have a number that 34 zeros.

Now again, odds are funny things. Just because something is a 1 in 1,000,000 chance, it doesn't mean that if it hasn't happened in 999,999 tries, it is guaranteed to happen the next time. The odds only mean that in 1,000,000 tries, we'd expect to see something happen once. Kind of like when people say 500-year floods. Just because it happened last year, it doesn't mean you are safe for another 499 years. It just means floods like this happen only .2% of the time, and just because it happened last year, doesn't mean the odds change.

Perhaps my math is off, but the odds don't seem that unmanageable to me given the time and space needed.

Joined:
Jan 5, 2010
Messages:
9,421
717
Trophy Points:
113
Location:
Maine
Stop it. I may get to sit a poker table with these folks one day.
17. ### cocodriloWell-Known Member

Joined:
Apr 8, 2007
Messages:
11,147
137
Trophy Points:
63
Why do these threads keep occurring? No one is going to change his or her mind on the subject, so what is the point?

Also, there are people who simply refuse to understand that evolution is not a theory of creation. It's a theory about how life evolves, not how it got here. That life evolves over time is indisputable, but of course there are people who will forever dispute it.

Carry on!
18. ### tim85Well-Known Member

Joined:
Nov 3, 2009
Messages:
4,143
309
Trophy Points:
83
Location:
Jacksonville, FL
Its not meant to necessarily convince anyone, but just for an interesting read. I found it interesting, apparently others did as well - i think those types of things are worth posting.

Joined:
Apr 3, 2007
Messages:
6,783
195
Trophy Points:
63
The writer's rationale seems to simply come down to "this makes the most sense to me". This is rather common type of reasoning for all kinds of complex knowledge, such as climate change, macroeconomics, international conflict, etc.

However, there is a paradox that doesn't seem to occur to most. 1) We think that most around us are irrational. 2) We assume that for anything to be true, it must make "sense" to us. However: 3) If so many people are irrational, why do we think that the world must make sense to our minds?

I mean, how many universes have any of us every babysat for 13 billion years? It's never happened, and yet we think that our minds are prepared with intuition that applies here. I think this is a large leap of faith.
20. ### tec68Well-Known Member

Joined:
Aug 12, 2010
Messages:
3,475
88
Trophy Points:
48
Location:
Fort Pierce

God

In Psalm 103:13-14 is one of my favorites and it says that God is like, “a father has compassion on his children, so the Lord has compassion on those who fear him; for he knows how we are formed, he remembers that we are dust.“ He is kind, He provides for, He sustains, He corrects, He disciplines, and He loves…but God is not a male as we know human maleness but He is male in His divine attributes.

The Son of Man

The Scriptures show dozens of time that Jesus was a male in the flesh and the Scriptures testify of this for even the Roman authorities said, “no one ever spoke like this man“ (John 7:47)! The Scriptures also testify that, “God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him” (John 3:17). Clearly Jesus was a man on earth but He was God before He became man (John 1:14).

The Holy Spirit

When Jesus said that He was going away, He was going to send the Helper. This Helper would also be called the Counselor as we read in John 16:7-8, “But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment.” Here we see that the Holy Spirit is referred to as a “He.” This does not mean that the Holy Spirit is a male as far as we think of human maleness but we must refer to the Holy Spirit in the masculine.

We have heard many wrongly attribute God as a “she, her, or mother-god” but these are not found in Scripture and these are an insult to God. There are also many Bibles that have God as gender-neutral. This is also wrong because the Bible in the Hebrew and Greek clearly say God is referred to in the masculine by name. This doesn’t mean that we should not refer to God the Father, the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit as “He’s” but they are not anything like a human male at all. Even so, we see that they are masculine by name and this is the way that we must refer to them. To refer to God in the female gender is not only incorrect; it is not biblical, so in the strictest sense, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are “He’s” or male. Not so much in persuasion, sex, or gender as we know it, but by title and definition.