Quite so. Whatever you do, don’t bring up altar boys.
Adam and Eve are often depicted navel-less. One of my geeky family’s many ongoing jokes is checking up whether Adam-and-Eve pictures have navels or not.
Anyway, why would God want to save time? He’s got all of eternity to spare :dubious:
Guy’s at the Vatican now? How cool! Guy was a year behind me at MIT, before going to Boston College, and was an officer of the MIT Science Fiction Society. He’s a very cool guy 
Anyhow, when someone pulls the “god made it look that way” trick, one can just ask if they’re talking about science or religion. The real problem with creationism, besides its being wrong, is that they’re trying to pass it off as science in order to be taught in schools. (Not that there is much chance of that anymore thanks to Supreme Court decisions.) If you can get a creationist to admit its not science, you’ve won about as much of the battle as it is possible to win.
I would be just fine with that, too, if they would then only let go of the “all the evidence supports the YE” claim. I don’t have a philosophical problem at all with the Omphalos Hypothesis, and if people want to believe that all the material evidence was supernaturally faked, okey-dokey.
But they do need to acknowledge that the business of science is to study the material evidence and come up with theories that fit the material evidence. I don’t care if they believe that a scientific theory isn’t the Real Transcendent Truth that is Super-scientifically Truthfully True ™, but they shouldn’t go around pretending that it doesn’t do its job as far as the material evidence is concerned.
There may be a few exceptions to this generalization, but by and large people who believe in a young Earth are basically Creationists or Intelligent Design advocates or whatever they are calling themselves lately. They are not simply scientists who have differing opinions that can be changed by rational evidence.
They WANT to believe the Earth is only about 6,000 years old so they can believe that it was created in six days with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, yadda yadda yadda… . . . .
You would think the argument about light reaching our eyes from stars that are a millions of light years away (since nothing can travel faster than light) would convince them that the universe is at least that old.
Do you know what their rebuttal is?
An almighty God is perfectly capable of making the universe with the light from those stars already having travelled most of the way to us. He is perfectly capable of creating sedimentary rock that looks old.
After all, look at Adam and Eve on the first day they were created. A modern anatomist studying them without knowing just who they were would naturally judge from their size, their dentition, their bones, their puberty characteristics, etc. that they were an adult man and woman, and would naturally suppose that they were at least 20 or so years old. But in fact, he would be wrong. Adam and Eve would at that moment have been only a few hours old!
You see, it is pointless to argue with these people, because as soon as you use scientific facts and logic to corner them and prove their allegations are absurd, they just escape using the “God can do anything” argument.
So what I do is this. I AGREE with them. Only I insist that in the interests of fairness, our schools must teach not** only ** the idea that the Earth might be only 6,000 years old.
I SAY THAT THE EARTH IS ONLY A WEEK OLD!
That’s right. My omnipotent God creates a new universe every week, with new planets, new creatures, the works! None of us here right now are more than a week old! None of us will be here a week from now.
“Now just a danged minute!” you may say to me. “I am over a week old, and so is everybody here except a few babies, and we ALL remember stuff that happened more than a week ago. And what about the Pyramids and the Parthenon and Roman ruins built more than 2,000 years ago?”
Well, my friends, do you think an omnipotent God is not capable of creating you last week with those memories already in your brains? If He can create billions of tons of sedimentary rock that looks like they took millions of years to form, surely the Pyramids and Roman ruins and a few convincing-looking artifacts would be a snap for Him? Not to mention a few history books?
This is WHY the Bible talks about a seven-day creation. Each universe lasts a week while God creates a new one. Then the old one disappears and the new one takes its place. And that is what God means when He says in the Bible “Behold I make all things anew”.
NOW I DEMAND, IN THE INTERESTS OF FAINESS AND EQUAL TIME, THAT MY THEORY OF THE WEEKLY WORLD BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS ALONGSIDE EVOLUTION AND THE SO-CALLED YOUNG EARTH THEORY.
Write your Congressman and demand it!
Actually the whole political pressure thing to get ‘equal time’ in schools is a testament to exactly how bloody useless creationism is as science; if it had any intrinsic merit at all, it would not require these efforts.
YOU WORSHIP A FALSE GOD. BURN IN HELL, INFIDEL.
The above is purely a rhetorical exercise, in case anyone gets the wrong idea.
It was just a way to try and get something going, to see what the other mainstream churches have to say. I picked on the Catholics because they are my “home team”. I imagine, many other religions will have similar statements. Since all the In The Beginning words are in Genesis, I’d like to see for example, what the Jewish interpretations and teachings would say about literalism.
I’m a little fuzzy about whether he is at the Vatican, or just asigned in some administrative way.
**“One word:”
"Dinosaurs.**
"Why isn’t there a chapter in the Bible like this:
"And as Jesus walked along the road to Galilee, his path was blocked by the biggest damn lizard you EVER saw.
“Jesus Christ, that’s a big lizard”, said Paul.
“I’m sure gonna write about this in MY Gospel”, said Matthew."
…
Valteron: Make no mistake. No YEer (or other creationist) would deny that God could have created the universe a week ago, including having implanted memories. On the contrary, they would congratulate you on finally understanding the breathtaking scope of God’s powers. But, since that’s not what the Bible says, it isn’t what did happen.
Mangetout: I hope it’s apparent that I don’t advocate teaching ID in public schools, but you’re not giving the YEers’ their due. This is a legitimate problem. They and their church teach their children one cosmology, then have them go to school and have an authority figure tell them that cosmology is wrong. This creates a conflict. Not so much on the science side; YEers don’t give a rat’s arse about science. On the faith side. That’s why they fight so hard over the issue. And why so many of them take their kids out of school and teach them at home.
SteveG1: My understanding from Jewish friends is that Genesis has long been considered a poetic rather than a literal work. (And a composite one at that, hence two versions of the creation story.) Most of them find it amusing that the fundamentalists have hijacked the text without understanding it. Especially when the whole Christian Jesus-fullfilled-prophesies thing is based on hidden prophesies (mysteries, Paul called them) which ignore the literal or facial meaning of the texts (Isaiah, for example).
F.U. Shakespeare: To be honest, I don’t think dinosaurs is such a stumper. One apologist’s response.
Reminder: I’m an atheist (or a strong agnostic, depending on how one defines terms).
Any position whatever, no matter how ridiculous, can be excused it you will just grant the premises on which it is based.
I think that overprotection of people, including children, from contrary ideas is foolish and self-defeating. It seems to me to be a certain way to make real enemies of the most thoughtful of your group. Sooner or later intelligent and thoughtful children will grow up and be exposed to the perfectly reasonable conclusions of science. That conflict of faith will return with a bang and many will leave their religion in disgust, as is witnessed by many on this board.
In my experience, it was those words…“the Lord works in mysterious ways” that made me (and probably most thinking people) leave the church. The very notion of stopping the act of exploration because “God knows best” is repugnant to me.
Thanks, but I don’t believe in pulling punches on this issue; I used to be a young earth creationist myself; I know what it’s about and I know what it is.
I think that there may be fundamentalist groups within Orthodox Judaism who are creationists. I’m not sure though. I think one thing that is different about Judaism though is it is less dominated by the fundamentalist elements than some other religions. In fact, many of us who call ourselves Jews aren’t religious at all. I consider it my ethnicity…not my religion.
Yup, and “intelligent design” is apparently making some headway even within more mainstream Judaism. From the website of ID promoter William Dembski:
And someday he’ll hit that 7-10 split.
My teenage niece has been taught in her Christian high school that carbon dating is totally inaccurate and unreliable. So it wouldn’t do any good to mention it to her or her teacher.
Comments like this indicate that the idea of randomness has been overplayed in explaining the theory of evolution and that randomness is not at all widely understood.
Evolution is not random. Evolution results in life that is better and better able to survive in its environment long enough to reproduce. This process certainly has the appearance of design but a conscious and purposeful designer isn’t required. The process is similar to generating musical tones out of random noise by the use of filters. In the case of evolution the filter is natural selection.
As to the first appearance of life, that’s not part of the theory of evolution. However, randomness is overplayed here too. The chemical rules dealing with how elements combine to form compounds are anything but random. Andorganic molecules are found in the dust clouds of interstellar (and maybe intergalactic) space.. In the cited text is this interesting little tidbit:
There appears to be a feeling that random processes can’t produce orderly outputs. That’s just nonsense. Snowflakes form by random collection of ice crystals yet their forms are quite ordered. All possible combinations occur and persist but if there were a natural selection process that favored particular forms those forms would be the ones that survive.
The occurence of automobile accidents is random as to when, where, and what automobiles will be involved. Yet the number of accidents of each type that will occur/million miles driven is quite orderly. Insurance companies rely on that order to stay in business and make a profit. The “when and where” are not uniformly distributed, with certain times and certain locations having more than their share of accidents, but they are not deterministic.
This overemphasis on “pure chance” in explaining evolution and the general unfamiliarity with random processes makes things easy for the Dembskis.