The Tolkien Forum

Welcome to our forum! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox! Plus you won't see ads ;)

Evolution vs. Creation

Walter

Flamekeeper
Joined
Nov 20, 2001
Messages
1,766
Reaction score
3
Location
Austria
Indeed, my tone was somewhat sarcastical, since there seems to be some discussion about "Dr." Hovind's PhD and the thesis with which he achieved that degree...

Aside from that, one doesn't exactly have to be an "evolutionist" to disagree with Hovind and/or with the assumption that the earth has been "created" some 6000 years ago....
 

Elessar II

The Clark Kent of ME
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
138
Reaction score
1
Location
Wherever the Action Is
Walter said:
Indeed, my tone was somewhat sarcastical, since there seems to be some discussion about "Dr." Hovind's PhD and the thesis with which he achieved that degree...

Aside from that, one doesn't exactly have to be an "evolutionist" to disagree with Hovind and/or with the assumption that the earth has been "created" some 6000 years ago....
Would you cut it with the quotation marks? What's with the word "evolutionist" in quotation marks? Either you are one or you're not. And the same with the belief that the earth was created, created in quotation marks of course. :rolleyes:

As for the "assumption" :D that the earth was created some 6000 yrs. ago. I personally believe it was inside the last 10,000 yrs.
 

Barliman Butterbur

Worthy Keeper/Bree Roué
Joined
Dec 7, 2003
Messages
2,768
Reaction score
8
Location
Prancing Pony, Bree
Elessar II said:
Would you cut it with the quotation marks? What's with the word "evolutionist" in quotation marks? Either you are one or you're not. And the same with the belief that the earth was created, created in quotation marks of course. :rolleyes:

As for the "assumption" :D that the earth was created some 6000 yrs. ago. I personally believe it was inside the last 10,000 yrs.
What's so "wrong" with quotation marks? As to "10,000," why that specific number? (Evidently you don't "know" about carbon dating...)

Lotho
 

Elessar II

The Clark Kent of ME
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
138
Reaction score
1
Location
Wherever the Action Is
"I" "never" "said" "there" "was" "anything" "wrong" "with" "quotation marks" "Lotho". "They" "can" "just" "get" "annoying", "especially" "when"
"they're" "not" "used properly". :D
Anyway, I didn't say exactly ten thousand years. If you read my post correctly, you will see I said inside ten thousand years. That could mean 50 years for all you know. :p
 

Gothmog

Lord of Balrogs
Staff member
Joined
Sep 10, 2001
Messages
1,849
Reaction score
82
Location
Cardiff, United Kingdom
Very well I think that we can now leave the subject of "Quotation Marks".

Would you cut it with the quotation marks? What's with the word "evolutionist" in quotation marks? Either you are one or you're not. And the same with the belief that the earth was created, created in quotation marks of course.
Why is it that you must be one or the other? I for one am not an "Evolutionist" but neither am I "Not an Evolutionist". As for the idea of "Creation" I neither believe nor disbelieve it.

I have not yet closed my mind on this matter. I do believe that it requires that the mind be as open as is possible so that we can understand what it is we learn. It may be that not until our time on this planet is ended shall we be able to get the final answer to this question.
 

Barliman Butterbur

Worthy Keeper/Bree Roué
Joined
Dec 7, 2003
Messages
2,768
Reaction score
8
Location
Prancing Pony, Bree
Gothmog said:
Very well I think that we can now leave the subject of "Quotation Marks".

Why is it that you must be one or the other? I for one am not an "Evolutionist" but neither am I "Not an Evolutionist". As for the idea of "Creation" I neither believe nor disbelieve it.

I have not yet closed my mind on this matter. I do believe that it requires that the mind be as open as is possible so that we can understand what it is we learn. It may be that not until our time on this planet is ended shall we be able to get the final answer to this question.
It sounds to me as if you might fit the definition of "agnostic" (pardon the quotes!:p), as a person who holds that neither the position of true believer nor atheist quite fits the mark. An agnostic holds that neither position is provable nor disprovable, and that the whole question remains open while awaiting final proof one way or the other.

Lotho
 

Gothmog

Lord of Balrogs
Staff member
Joined
Sep 10, 2001
Messages
1,849
Reaction score
82
Location
Cardiff, United Kingdom
Lotho_Pimple said:
It sounds to me as if you might fit the definition of "agnostic" (pardon the quotes!:p), as a person who holds that neither the position of true believer nor atheist quite fits the mark. An agnostic holds that neither position is provable nor disprovable, and that the whole question remains open while awaiting final proof one way or the other.

Lotho
Hummmm. Perhaps. But then again I have only given my lack of position in regards to this question ;). What my position is about a "Creator" as opposed to method is still covered by a shadow. :D

A few more posts may give you some "evidence" on that position. :D
 

Walter

Flamekeeper
Joined
Nov 20, 2001
Messages
1,766
Reaction score
3
Location
Austria
Elessar II said:
Would you cut it with the quotation marks? What's with the word "evolutionist" in quotation marks? Either you are one or you're not. And the same with the belief that the earth was created, created in quotation marks of course. :rolleyes:

As for the "assumption" :D that the earth was created some 6000 yrs. ago. I personally believe it was inside the last 10,000 yrs.
How would you define "Evolutionist" and "Creationist" then?

I would also be interested to learn why you "believe" the earth was "created" inside the last 10,000 yrs. and how that - according to your beliefs - happened.
 

Walter

Flamekeeper
Joined
Nov 20, 2001
Messages
1,766
Reaction score
3
Location
Austria
Zale said:
I seem to remember hearing that Stephen Hawking proved mathematically (so proved “true") that the Universe had to have a beginning. (For his PhD, I think.) Whether that beginning was the Big Bang or not is another matter, but the “steady state” theory has just gone out the window. Creationists wouldn’t like that one anyway (if the Universe always has been, when did God create it?).
Certainly if Mr Hawking and the ilk haven’t worked out what was before the beginning of the Universe, I doubt we will here - unless you think it was God, which simplifies things a bit.
I would like to learn more about that proof.

A scientific theory usually is just a mathematical model attempting to describe our observations about what we call "reality". What I think that Penrose and Hawking did, was to prove that - according to the mathematical model of Einstein's relativity-theory - time must also have had a beginning when our universe was just a point in space (call that the big-bang if you want). But they did not "prove true" that the the Universe had to have a beginning, that there once was a "big-bang" or that there actually exists a universe.

I think we need - especially in discussions like the one in this thread - distinguish carefully between what we usually call "reality" and the "image" we have of this "reality". Science and Logic can help improving that "image", but "reality" must not necessarily be - and probably is not at all - "identical" with our "image" of it...
 

Elessar II

The Clark Kent of ME
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
138
Reaction score
1
Location
Wherever the Action Is
Walter said:
How would you define "Evolutionist" and "Creationist" then?

I would also be interested to learn why you "believe" the earth was "created" inside the last 10,000 yrs. and how that - according to your beliefs - happened.
To put it in one of the most basic definitions: I would define an evolutionist as a person that believes in evolution over eons of time, and a creationist as a person who believes in six day creation.

As for why I believe what I believe, you'll have to look back at my other posts. I don't really feel like repeating myself all over again. (you see, I can only type 40 words a minute, and it takes me forever to type anything out. :( )
 

Mrs. Maggott

Home is where the cat is
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Messages
3,478
Reaction score
11
Location
Long Island, New York
Oh dear! I really wouldn't make the definition along those lines at all! I would say that a true "Darwinian evolutionist" is someone who believes that whatever happened and however it happened, it did so absent a "Creator"; that is, that it "evolved" without the "assistance" of any sentient "Creative Source". A true "evolutionist" believes that all that exists is limited to the physical universe and that when life ends, it ends. He may believe in a "big bang" theory of the beginning; he may believe in an eternally existing universe; he may believe that the universe will continue to expand until there is nothing remaining or, conversely, he may believe in a fluctuating universe which involves the "big crunch" which is then followed by another "big bang". But however he believes that reality exists, it does so independent of any Creator.

A "creationist", on the other hand, may not believe in a literal "six day" period of creation, but he does believe that there was/is a "Creator" who began it all and whose plan is working out over time. He also believes that we human beings may 'access' the Creator (prayer and worship) and that the Creator is interested in us and, furthermore, intends at some time in the future, to "recreate" His kingdom of perfection.

And, of course, there are others who fall in between. Deists like Jefferson believe in a "creative force" which brought the universe into being, but that force cannot be "tapped" by man (this is very much the Stars Wars type of "force" that is morally neutral like electricity). Deists do not believe in a "prayer-hearing" God but neither do they believe in a universe arising out of mere random chance.

It is wise to beware limiting those who believe that God "created" the universe to those who have a "literal view" of the Old Testament. Remember, the sun and moon were not created until (I think) the third day. That would make it a trifle hard to figure out just how long the first two days were since "a day" is determined by the revolution of the earth on its axis as it revolves around the sun. Certainly, the early Church was inclined to look upon the Creation account as being somewhat of a parable rather than a literal account of the matter. However, there is no doubt that the sequence in which life arises - plant and then animal - is true enough and the fact that man arises last of all in creation is also scientifically accurate (especially given that science has been able to determine that all human DNA can be traced back to one woman!

But I would not limit those who believe in a Divine origin - "creation" - of reality simply to those who have a literal understanding of Genesis.
 

Elessar II

The Clark Kent of ME
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
138
Reaction score
1
Location
Wherever the Action Is
Mrs. Maggott said:
Oh dear! I really wouldn't make the definition along those lines at all! I would say that a true "Darwinian evolutionist" is someone who believes that whatever happened and however it happened, it did so absent a "Creator"; that is, that it "evolved" without the "assistance" of any sentient "Creative Source". A true "evolutionist" believes that all that exists is limited to the physical universe and that when life ends, it ends. He may believe in a "big bang" theory of the beginning; he may believe in an eternally existing universe; he may believe that the universe will continue to expand until there is nothing remaining or, conversely, he may believe in a fluctuating universe which involves the "big crunch" which is then followed by another "big bang". But however he believes that reality exists, it does so independent of any Creator.
Hey, I was asked for my definitions. :D

...look upon the Creation account as being somewhat of a parable rather than a literal account of the matter.
Yes, I can understand how you may see the Genesis as a parable. But there is also another parable given by Jesus in the book of Matthew.
Here we see Jesus, the son of God, perform his first miracle, the turning of water into wine. Begged by his mother Mary to do something about the premature running out of all the wine at a certain wedding, Jesus takes six jugs of water, and turns them into aged wine of the best kind! The wine was so good, in fact that the people wondered why in the world the people in charge would save such excellent wine for the end of the wedding!
Do you see the connection?
Jesus' first miracle: using six jars of water, he made aged wine.
God's first miracle (that we know of): using six days, he made an aged universe.


Remember, the sun and moon were not created until (I think) the third day. That would make it a trifle hard to figure out just how long the first two days were since "a day" is determined by the revolution of the earth on its axis as it revolves around the sun.
Since when does God need a sun to judge how long a day is?
 

Mrs. Maggott

Home is where the cat is
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Messages
3,478
Reaction score
11
Location
Long Island, New York
The term "day" used in Genesis does not necessarily equate to what we understand as a "day", that is 24 hours each made up 60 minutes etc. To suggest that the "day" referred to in Genesis is limited by our concept of the term is to limit God - something which I assume you would agree would not be wise. Furthermore, the language in the Old Testament is not exactly the same - terminologically speaking - as our present English understanding of these words. So "day" may not even mean that in the original text. It may have referred to something more akin to "ages".

The Western Christian need to "define" and "explain" everything to the point that one can give a "date" to the beginning of creation is frankly a mystery to the Eastern Church. We are quite willing to let God take however much "time" He wishes to accomplish His will. Furthermore, we are even willing to allow Him to do it in a way that secular "scientists" might find acceptable within their own limited human understanding.

Frankly, we have never seen the need to have God working in such a way that He is evident in His intervention. I don't doubt that He sent a flaming chariot for Elijah and appeared to Moses as a Burning Bush, but that doesn't mean that everything He has done in the past and will do in the future has to resemble a C. B. DeMille or even a Peter Jackson production.
 

Walter

Flamekeeper
Joined
Nov 20, 2001
Messages
1,766
Reaction score
3
Location
Austria
Elessar II said:
Hey, I was asked for my definitions. :D
Did you already give them?

To put it in one of the most basic definitions: I would define an evolutionist as a person that believes in evolution over eons of time, and a creationist as a person who believes in six day creation.
That - to my understanding - is not a definition, since it does not really describe the meaning or your understanding of "Evolution" or "Creation". Maybe I should've asked for an "explanation" about how you see "Evolution" and "Creation", then...

I'm not quite sure what your intention is, Elessar. If you merely intend to state your opinion that evolution is bogus and creation is the thing, then consider it done. In this case every further discussion is simply a waste of time for everyone involved.

If your intention is to widen your understanding regarding the Evolution vs. Creation topic, then you could just read carefully what others - especially the older and wiser ones like Mrs. M and Lotho, but also Zale, Eriol, Luthien, to name but a few - had to say about that topic.

But if you would like to convince anyone who believes in evolution that they are wrong, you needed at least to make us understand how you think our universe, the earth and eventually mankind came into being and why you believe that this was so - against all that evidence historians, astronomers, paleoontologists, etc. provide us with. But in this case just stating "the Bible says so" or "Dr. Hovind says so" or "I think it was so" won't suffice, I fear. You will need to invest a little more time and energy to back up your claims, so that those of us who don't believe that the words in the bible are - literally and not metaphorically - the ultimate truth regarding history and science, can understand why you make your claim.
 
Last edited:

Elessar II

The Clark Kent of ME
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
138
Reaction score
1
Location
Wherever the Action Is
If your intention is to widen your understanding regarding the Evolution vs. Creation topic, then you could just read carefully what others - especially the older and wiser ones like Mrs. M and Lotho, but also Zale, Eriol, Luthien, to name but a few - had to say about that topic.
I noticed that these are ALL evolutionists, as you are. Frankly, it seems to me that I am the ONLY creationist debating right now. If you want me to be quiet, then this thread might as well close right now, as it will just be a one-sided debate.

[BTW, when I am refering to the Bible, I am talking to the theists who DO believe it ( or most of it) to be true.]

And Walter, I seriously recommend that you to go back several pages and read. As I've said before, I do NOT want to repeat myself when all the info you need is just a few pages back.
 

Mrs. Maggott

Home is where the cat is
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Messages
3,478
Reaction score
11
Location
Long Island, New York
Elessar II said:
I noticed that these are ALL evolutionists, as you are. Frankly, it seems to me that I am the ONLY creationist debating right now. If you want me to be quiet, then this thread might as well close right now, as it will just be a one-sided debate.

[BTW, when I am refering to the Bible, I am talking to the theists who DO believe it ( or most of it) to be true.]

And Walter, I seriously recommend that you to go back several pages and read. As I've said before, I do NOT want to repeat myself when all the info you need is just a few pages back.
You are certainly not alone in believing that God created the universe and all that is within it. However, I think you are being a bit narrow in your understanding of what a "creationist" is vs. an "evolutionist". As I previously pointed out, a "true" Darwinian evolutionist believes that the universe "happened" and evolved without the assistance of a Creator (divine or otherwise). Other "theists" believe that there was a Creator but that He/It simply started things and then walked away; that is, their idea of "God" is not the "prayer hearing" God of Scripture (or the Koran). Then there are Christians (and Jews) who believe in a Creator, a prayer-hearing Deity who pretty much followed what has been posited in Scripture but that much of what has been placed there (especially in the beginning of Genesis) is not to be taken "literally", but "figuratively" and that the universe (including the earth and its life forms) may indeed have been "created" according to what our rather limited science has already determined. In this way, one may believe that the universe is billions of years old and that the sun and its planets are considerably younger than that and that the earth is younger yet again but still is millions of years old and that there were dinosaurs etc. all without "losing" the belief in a Divine Creator. Then there are those for whom Genesis is to be taken literally! When God says "six days" speaking through His prophet, He means just that: six twenty-four hour days!

I would suggest that anyone who entertains the least amount of speculation on the matter will fall somewhere in that gamut of opinions I have posited here although there are some Eastern religions would would argue that there is no creation and everything is an illusion! But I would certainly say that "creationists" should be allowed to contain those of us who believe that God created the universe but do not necessarily understand Genesis in a totally literal sense. I really don't think it's fair to "dismiss" us as "evolutionists" given that we have the most important factor present: the belief in a Creator.
 

Zale

Wordsmith
Joined
Mar 18, 2002
Messages
370
Reaction score
2
Location
Currently Oxford
As my physics teacher once said, "Answers only ever redefine the questions". No matter how far we go, there will still be something else to find out. Ultimately, the Universe has to have been created at some point, and the debate is whether it "just happened", as opposed to God having purposefully created it. Notice evolution cannot enter this as at this point there was nothing before. I don't know enough myself to form a strong opinion, but I tend to think that something cannot come from nothing, therefore there may well have been a God who created the Universe, but I don't agree with many Christian and hardly any Muslim ideals (the only two religions I know anything worth knowing about). So: I have dubbed myself a cynical agnostic.

Elessar, I am not necessarily an evolutionist: for there to be a debate there has to be two plausible sides; I am not interested in my opinion prevailing so much as finding out which opinion is 'right' (see discussions on truth), and the best way to do that is to provoke a passionate response from someone believing in the other possibility (usually by challenging their view). It seems to be working so far...

If this is all an illusion, who is hallucinating? Who is projecting the illusion? When were these created? Creation has to have happened sometime, no matter what circle theory you believe in.
 

Walter

Flamekeeper
Joined
Nov 20, 2001
Messages
1,766
Reaction score
3
Location
Austria
Elessar II said:
And Walter, I seriously recommend that you to go back several pages and read. As I've said before, I do NOT want to repeat myself when all the info you need is just a few pages back.
Oh, I have read them all. I just can't make head nor tail of it...

Btw, there's a nice pic for you...
 

Helcaraxë

The Grinding Ice
Joined
May 20, 2003
Messages
397
Reaction score
0
Location
North of the Sundering Seas
Narya said:
And did you know that the Bible recorded the earth was round about 1,500 years before Chris Columbus discovered it was round?

Actually, it was Aristotle who first stated it was round. Anyway, I believe the Bible also states that the Sun, moon, and other celestial objects rotate around the Earth. It was not until Copernicus that the modern thoery of the solar system was first developed. If this is the inspired word of God, than God was wrong about how he created the cosmos. :) The Bible has little basis in observable, verifyable facts.
 

Mrs. Maggott

Home is where the cat is
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Messages
3,478
Reaction score
11
Location
Long Island, New York
The Bible does not mention the movement of the planets. The fact that many Christians believed that the various heavenly bodies moved around the earth has nothing whatsoever to do with Scripture and everything with the "accepted science" of the age. The ancient Greeks (and probably most other ancients) knew that the earth was round because the sun at noon threw different length shadows depending upon where one was upon its surface. Hence, it was a simple deduction that one was standing not upon a flat surface, but a rounded one. Furthermore, the fact that one saw things rising from the horizon topmost first (rather than all of a piece) meant that one was seeing them approach upon a rounded surface.

Do not confuse medieval scientific understanding (or lack thereof) with Christian teachings; they are not the same. God did not feel it was necessary to go into physics and cosmology when He was interacting with mankind. Moral and ethical as well as religious issues were the order of the day, not science. If a man is good and keeps God's Word, it matters not if he has a mistaken understanding of the cosmos. On the other hand, if he is a whiz at quantum mechanics and a miserable essobee, his level of knowledge is equally irrelevant in the final analysis.

Suffice it to say that the Bible was written and collated at a time and in a place where advanced mathematics, physics and astronomy would have been beyond the understanding of the target audience. Under the circumstances, I think God did a pretty good job making Himself known to a bunch of nomadic shepherds and letting them take it from there (with His help, of course!).
 
Top