Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It's defiantly possible that humanity was created in the not too recent past, considering the age of the universe and earth. This can be shown by the problems of finding a evolutionary link in prehistoric human remains, there's a gap we haven't filled yet.

Of course, then the question is who/what created today's humans? 99% of answers be two different things.

 d-usa wrote:
Which is a problem with the labels, and the number of definitions that float around.

As such there is no conflict between science as we know it, and believing that everything was created by God who used everything we know about science to design the universe. You can believe that God created man and used evolution as the tool to get there. The fringe groups on the edges just love to engage in the same type of behavior that we see in our fancy congress.

I tend to go with the definition that's been tested in a couple of court battles. I don't consider people who believe that God set everything in motion by kicking off evolution to be Creationists. Nor even Intelligent Design theorists.

How would you define me Seaward? I consider science to actually be a testament to the intricacy of the creation of the divine. Science doesn't explain away god, but rather is the lens by which we as the limited little simians that we are can begin to comprehend god.

 Seaward wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Creationism isn't stupid. There is no conflict between C and evolution. I never get the issue.

Creationism/Intelligent Design, as its proponents would like to have it taught in schools, is quite incompatible with evolution. ID adherents state that evolution is a myth, their position largely hinging around the development of "complex biological structures" that simply could not have evolved, and thus had to have been designed.

Did I say Intelligent Design? No. The Great Wienie cares not.
I said evolution.

Evolution is the brush. God is the artist.
One does not look merely at the tools and think that the tools are the masterpiece. They are merely the tools.

Or as the immortal bard once said: "And I will execute great vengeance upon them with furious rebukes; and they shall know that I am the LORD, when I shall lay my vengeance upon them."
Take that hippy treehuggers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
How would you define me Seaward? I consider science to actually be a testament to the intricacy of the creation of the divine. Science doesn't explain away god, but rather is the lens by which we as the limited little simians that we are can begin to comprehend god.

Oooh thats good. I like that. Team Wienie approves.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Creationism isn't stupid. There is no conflict between C and evolution. I never get the issue.

Creationism/Intelligent Design, as its proponents would like to have it taught in schools, is quite incompatible with evolution. ID adherents state that evolution is a myth, their position largely hinging around the development of "complex biological structures" that simply could not have evolved, and thus had to have been designed.

Did I say Intelligent Design? No. The Great Wienie cares not.
I said evolution.

Evolution is the brush. God is the artist.
One does not look merely at the tools and think that the tools are the masterpiece. They are merely the tools.

Or as the immortal bard once said: "And I will execute great vengeance upon them with furious rebukes; and they shall know that I am the LORD, when I shall lay my vengeance upon them."
Take that hippy treehuggers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
How would you define me Seaward? I consider science to actually be a testament to the intricacy of the creation of the divine. Science doesn't explain away god, but rather is the lens by which we as the limited little simians that we are can begin to comprehend god.

Oooh thats good. I like that. Team Wienie approves.

That pretty much sums me up as well. Every discovery about the complexity of the universe just makes God that much more amazing in my eyes.

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Which is a problem with the labels, and the number of definitions that float around.

As such there is no conflict between science as we know it, and believing that everything was created by God who used everything we know about science to design the universe. You can believe that God created man and used evolution as the tool to get there. The fringe groups on the edges just love to engage in the same type of behavior that we see in our fancy congress.

I tend to go with the definition that's been tested in a couple of court battles. I don't consider people who believe that God set everything in motion by kicking off evolution to be Creationists. Nor even Intelligent Design theorists.

I agree. Intelligent design is the idea that God didn't bother with setting up evolution, He just designed everything, i.e. Intelligent Design.

The "scientific" idea of God would be that he set up the universe with a set of physical rules and constants that caused it to develop and into the form we are aware of. Thus, evolution is not a denial of God, but an expression of His original method of creation.

The core concept of ID is that complex organisms cannot have evolved from simpler structures, thus God must have designed them. When you think about it, this denies God's omnipotence, because it claims He is incapable of creating a system that can evolve.

Can I join team wienie? That sums me up, though with less of the God word and more of the, "Higher Being that which I don't know yet, but I'm pretty sure he exists".

To be fair, this is a step in the right direction.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
How would you define me Seaward? I consider science to actually be a testament to the intricacy of the creation of the divine. Science doesn't explain away god, but rather is the lens by which we as the limited little simians that we are can begin to comprehend god.

That depends on your views on evolution, the age of the earth, the origin of life, and so on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Did I say Intelligent Design? No. The Great Wienie cares not.
I said evolution.

You did, however, say creationism. Literal creationism is completely incompatible with evolution. A broad, "Oh, yeah, God kicked things off and used all the various natural phenomena we can observe through science to craft the universe as it stands today," is creationism only by a rather loose definition.

 Seaward wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
How would you define me Seaward? I consider science to actually be a testament to the intricacy of the creation of the divine. Science doesn't explain away god, but rather is the lens by which we as the limited little simians that we are can begin to comprehend god.

That depends on your views on evolution, the age of the earth, the origin of life, and so on.

For me it would be the same thing the scientific community believes with a "God did it" tacked on to the end.

 Alfndrate wrote:
Can I join team wienie? That sums me up, though with less of the God word and more of the, "Higher Being that which I don't know yet, but I'm pretty sure he exists".

Well I'm using "god" in my posts in the same sense as you are sorta and Frazz is okay with me.

 Seaward wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
How would you define me Seaward? I consider science to actually be a testament to the intricacy of the creation of the divine. Science doesn't explain away god, but rather is the lens by which we as the limited little simians that we are can begin to comprehend god.

That depends on your views on evolution, the age of the earth, the origin of life, and so on.

Everything science presently says is accurate until we learn something that disproves it or modifies it. The earth is pretty freakin old, evolution is empirical fact, etc. To paraphrase what Frazzled just said science is examining the details and tools behind the painting.

Then you're nowhere near a literal creationist, who believes the earth is only a few thousand years old, God created everything 'by hand' as it were, the Abrahamic origin narrative is basically correct, and so on.

 d-usa wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
How would you define me Seaward? I consider science to actually be a testament to the intricacy of the creation of the divine. Science doesn't explain away god, but rather is the lens by which we as the limited little simians that we are can begin to comprehend god.

That depends on your views on evolution, the age of the earth, the origin of life, and so on.

For me it would be the same thing the scientific community believes with a "God did it" tacked on to the end.

Same,

it's fairly easy to rationalize the thought process behind the idea that a Wizard did it.

Earth and all it's things were made in 6 days? By who's measurement? We have proof that the earth took years upon years upon millenia, etc... to form, cool to the point of crust, and eventually even out so we could get life forms started.

etc... I don't remember what was made on the subsequent days, I'm a bad Catholic.

 Seaward wrote:
Then you're nowhere near a literal creationist, who believes the earth is only a few thousand years old, God created everything 'by hand' as it were, the Abrahamic origin narrative is basically correct, and so on.

That, incidentally, is what Robertson was talking about. I'm fairly shocked he said it. He's a pretty hardcore theocrat.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Creationism isn't stupid. There is no conflict between C and evolution. I never get the issue.

Creationism/Intelligent Design, as its proponents would like to have it taught in schools, is quite incompatible with evolution. ID adherents state that evolution is a myth, their position largely hinging around the development of "complex biological structures" that simply could not have evolved, and thus had to have been designed.

Did I say Intelligent Design? No. The Great Wienie cares not.
I said evolution.

Evolution is the brush. God is the artist.
One does not look merely at the tools and think that the tools are the masterpiece. They are merely the tools.

Or as the immortal bard once said: "And I will execute great vengeance upon them with furious rebukes; and they shall know that I am the LORD, when I shall lay my vengeance upon them."
Take that hippy treehuggers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
How would you define me Seaward? I consider science to actually be a testament to the intricacy of the creation of the divine. Science doesn't explain away god, but rather is the lens by which we as the limited little simians that we are can begin to comprehend god.

Oooh thats good. I like that. Team Wienie approves.

That pretty much sums me up as well. Every discovery about the complexity of the universe just makes God that much more amazing in my eyes.

God had me at bacon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Can I join team wienie? That sums me up, though with less of the God word and more of the, "Higher Being that which I don't know yet, but I'm pretty sure he exists".

Team Wienie accepts all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
You did, however, say creationism. Literal creationism is completely incompatible with evolution. A broad, "Oh, yeah, God kicked things off and used all the various natural phenomena we can observe through science to craft the universe as it stands today," is creationism only by a rather loose definition.

No its not actually...heretic!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
How would you define me Seaward? I consider science to actually be a testament to the intricacy of the creation of the divine. Science doesn't explain away god, but rather is the lens by which we as the limited little simians that we are can begin to comprehend god.

That depends on your views on evolution, the age of the earth, the origin of life, and so on.

For me it would be the same thing the scientific community believes with a "God did it" tacked on to the end.

Universe: I want to stay out past curfew.
God: No.
Universe: All the other creators do.
God: As long as you're living under my roof Mister, you will follow My Rules!
Universe: You're so unfair!
God: Yep. its good to be me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
Then you're nowhere near a literal creationist, who believes the earth is only a few thousand years old, God created everything 'by hand' as it were, the Abrahamic origin narrative is basically correct, and so on.

The narrative is correct. When you know how long a day is in God time, get back to me. In the mean time, can you move to the left? I'm trying to get a view of Alpha Centauri.

 Frazzled wrote:

Did I say Intelligent Design? No. The Great Wienie cares not.
I said evolution.

Evolution is the brush. God is the artist.
One does not look merely at the tools and think that the tools are the masterpiece. They are merely the tools.

Oooh thats good. I like that. Team Wienie approves.

 Frazzled wrote:


Evolution is the brush. God is the artist.

God is an artist?
The filthy hippy, he should go out and get a real job.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Evolution is the brush. God is the artist.

God is an artist?
The filthy hippy, he should go out and get a real job.

He's one of those rich conservatives that can afford to paint while he acts like he's the ruler of the universe duh Gotta stay within the world view of the rich conservative Christians.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Did I say Intelligent Design? No. The Great Wienie cares not.
I said evolution.

Evolution is the brush. God is the artist.
One does not look merely at the tools and think that the tools are the masterpiece. They are merely the tools.

Oooh thats good. I like that. Team Wienie approves.

The Dachshunds have taught you well. Intelligent design is unnecessary distraction to which dogmas are added. Intelligent design is not evolution, but evolution makes no comment on the existance of God or His hand in creation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

God had me at bacon.

That has to be siggied.

 Frazzled wrote:

Evolution is the brush. God is the artist.

God can make a damn fine paintbrush, but its an awful shame he can't paint.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Evolution is the brush. God is the artist.

God can make a damn fine paintbrush, but its an awful shame he can't paint.

(Looks at Hubble pictures).
Paints just fine she do.

 Frazzled wrote:

(Looks at Hubble pictures).
Paints just fine she do.

God must be a man, I cannot live in a world where Alanis Morissette gets to tell Alan Rickman what to do.

The real question is not the age of the earth, but rather, is it flat?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
How would you define me Seaward? I consider science to actually be a testament to the intricacy of the creation of the divine. Science doesn't explain away god, but rather is the lens by which we as the limited little simians that we are can begin to comprehend god.

One of the first things I've ever exalted.

Ah, it's a great time to be an Evangelionist!

So I am one of those people who believes that the earth is under 10 000 years old. But I don't really have issues with other people who believe differently.

To use an anology. I like playing 40k, (seven day adventism) and believe it's the best gaming system out there. But most people like to play WHFB, (the scientific community and their backers) Now I just really want to play table top games as much as possible, so I know the rules to both, and enjoy both. But only one is king.

I think people have more of an issue with rule set purity and the various fanboys than they do with the actual games themselves.

 Ratbarf wrote:
So I am one of those people who believes that the earth is under 10 000 years old. But I don't really have issues with other people who believe differently.

Really? Not just a joke to stir people up?

 Ratbarf wrote:
So I am one of those people who believes that the earth is under 10 000 years old.

But there's fossils on this planet that are older than 10,000 years.

 Ratbarf wrote:
So I am one of those people who believes that the earth is under 10 000 years old. But I don't really have issues with other people who believe differently.

To use an anology. I like playing 40k, (seven day adventism) and believe it's the best gaming system out there. But most people like to play WHFB, (the scientific community and their backers) Now I just really want to play table top games as much as possible, so I know the rules to both, and enjoy both. But only one is king.

I think people have more of an issue with rule set purity and the various fanboys than they do with the actual games themselves.

So what you're saying is, if GW says that 40k is the best game ever, it clearly is!

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:
So I am one of those people who believes that the earth is under 10 000 years old.

But there's fossils on this planet that are older than 10,000 years.

There are cave-paintings that are older than that. To claim anything other than that the earth is many millions of years old is just infantile rubbish.