Clai gave the best creationist theory I have heard, which is saying a lot since I have been inundated with these theories. The reason it is so good is that it makes the question moot.
Analogy:
You are a wine connieseur during Jesus’ life, and you just so happen to witness the miracle of him turning the water into wine. You having a great knowledge of wine and able to determine the specific age, quality and region of any wine would be able to determine the qualities of the Jesus’ wine. In fact, the wine would have to have these qualities if it was to be considered wine. It would not be outside of the powers of a miracle for the wine to have these qualities. Within the instant of the miracle, the water in its transformation to wine gains all the qualities that wine needs to be wine: age, grape, region.
For the world to be a world, it needs to have all the qualities inherent with a world. These qualities would include a history. The reason it needs this history is based on the physical laws which preside over the world. As God creates the world, he creates the history the world needs to be a world.
If this is true, then the question becomes how does this really affect anything? If God created the universe (world) with everything intact because to be the universe it needed all the qualities of the universe, then how would when it happen actually affect us? 100,000,000,000 years ago, 5000 years ago. Its still the same outcome. The laws of physics are still the same. The fossil are still the same. The story of evolution is still the same. It has to have all these qualities to be a universe.
There you go end of argument. It does not lessen the pursuit of the history because if God did create everything then you are still learning something.
Knowing more about the universe would be equal to learning more about God.
Its a brilliant argument because it dismisses the argument.
Wilbur
This is very similar to an argument put forth by my Biology teacher I had when at U(S)L. It was actually a Biology discussion class that was taken in addition to Biology as part of the honors program. It went something like this (hope I don’t mangle it too badly): That the Universe and our world has been around for a long time is undeniable. It is measurable. From geological records, fossils, carbon dating and so on, we see a history of our world that goes back way before the biblical story of creation. And yes, one could say that, well, God made it that way. But one could also say that you came into existence 5 minutes ago, aged to your current age and with complete memories of your entire life. How could you tell? Do you believe your memories and the physical signs of age on your body? Or do you believe the person telling you to have faith that indeed you are only five minutes old? Therein lies the underlying problem with “creationism” (I believe it goes by the name “Intelligent design” these days). Science is a method. You hypothesize, theorize, and collect data to try to understand and explain the world. Some theories don’t work out, some have to be completely scrapped, and some are taken as law. But there is a rigorous process that the scientist must go through. But with creationism, there is no process, there is no testing. There is only “because God made it so. Have faith. QED”. And that’s why it bothers be when I hear about school boards voting to shoe-horn creationism (excuse me “intelligent design”) into high school biology cirricula. You can’t test it like you would other theories. Maybe it has a place in Philosophy class, or debate. But not science. Ron.
My comment was that this was the best argument, maybe because the person telling me this stressed the fact that whether God created the world 5 mins ago or not does not stop or hinder the pursuit for information. In fact, studying and theorizing that it would have taken longer to create the fossil remains found would help get you closer to mapping out God’s mind. His basic principle is God exists, but this knowledge does not effect his actions or decisions in the least. I reverse of the Stephen Crane poem A man said to the universe: “Sir I exist!” “However,” replied the universe, “The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation.” —– God says to man: “I created everything and I am all” Man replies: “Thanks, but this knowledge does not help answer any of my questions.” Does this mean that “intelligent design” is the answer? No. Does this mean evolution should not be theorized and understood? No. Does this information hold any signifigance in our lives? No. The reason behind creationism being shoe-horned into schools is one out of fear. Evangelicals believe that there is a crisis of faith happening across the land, and if they do not act quickly and decisively, then all is lost in the struggle for humanity’s soul. Einstein said the closer I more I understand about Physics the more I understand God. Was he correct or misguided? I really could give a rat’s ass right now. Wilbur
[quote:49461573fa]My comment was that this was the best argument[/quote:49461573fa] Indeed it is the best argument as it takes the argument out of the realm of science and puts it squarely in the realm of faith. I read an essay by Robert Ingersoll once (actually, I read a few, maybe it was [url=http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/gods.html]this one [/url]) in which he argued that the Universe can just as easily be explained without a creator as with one. Given this situation, I place the burden of proof on the person claiming the existence of a creator. “You need to prove to me that there is a God, I don’t need to prove to you that there isn’t”. To this day, I have yet hear an argument that convinces me. Maybe I’m just faithless. [quote:49461573fa]The reason behind creationism being shoe-horned into schools is one out of fear. Evangelicals believe that there is a crisis of faith happening across the land, and if they do not act quickly and decisively, then all is lost in the struggle for humanity’s soul.[/quote:49461573fa] Oh, I know the reason, it just bugs the shit out of me. I find it very disingenuous to consider it a science, or even vaguely scientific. Creationism has about as much place in schools as chemistry does in church. It bugs me that people don’t see this, but I’m no so naive about human nature as to expect anything otherwise. [quote:49461573fa]Einstein said the closer I more I understand about Physics the more I understand God. Was he correct or misguided? [/quote:49461573fa] Neither/both? Who can say? As brilliant as Einstein was, he was still just a man trying to express himself. [quote:49461573fa]I really could give a rat’s ass right now. [/quote:49461573fa] Well, fine. You started it. (Takes ball). (Goes home).
Argument from Intellegent design… i went to a talk about that yesterday… it was fun.. I impressed Mary I think…