Go Back   Science Forums
View Single Post
Old 09-18-2008   #10 (permalink)
HydrogenBond's Avatar
HydrogenBond
Creating


 



Not Ranked  0 score     
Re: Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?

Probability and quantum mechanics opens the door to anything. So there is a finite probability that Shubee is correct. Where I was going with this is to question the basic premise of science and religion that the bible claim somehow defied space and time and used modern definitions. The religious assume this and science tries to refute it, with neither side seeing the flaw in terms of what was possible for humans 7000 years ago.

I would assume the ancients had something else in mind, when they defined human, that was more connected to behavior. In other words, their definition only had use of the eyes and no technology. So they could see animals had hearts, brains, lungs and blood just like humans. The difference would have to be something else. It would be connected to temperament. A humanoid acting like an animal would be called a beast. If they showed more civilized behavior they had something more and were called human. This temperament coordinates with the formation of civilization and the bible time table.

The next point is explaining what appear to be creationists claims in Genesis that the universe formed so quickly. The way this can be understood is the new human mind was more self aware and therefore aware of the world around them in a different way. This new awareness created the illusion these things appeared. In other words, nature was evolving but at a certain point, perception changed due to a new level of human awareness. They did not have modern understanding and assumed it just materialized.

Let me give an example. Before the former planet Pluto was discovered it did not exist in terms of human perception. One day it appeared. Modern people understand that it was always there, but the ancients did not have the benefit of collected knowledge. If they had discovered Pluto, they would say a god just put it there or it appeared out of the darkness that day. What they are documenting in genesis are dates of discovery when human awareness began to notice these things. Before that, the beasts of the field had little interest beyond eating and copulating and were not self aware enough to contemplate these things.

Seeing all the plants and animal form in one day can be explained logically.
This affect still occurs in modern times. Say there is a new discovery that is provocative. The day before nobody was thinking along certain lines. But the following day, after the discovery is revealed, people are brain storming and extrapolating in new directions they never thought possible, made possible by the discovery. All these new extrapolations appear suddenly, released by a trigger. The extrapolation into the perception of all the plants and animals only took a conceptual trigger. This does not mean they had cataloged all the species, just they became aware of how far detail extended in nature. If you existed at a time where there is zero information, with no conceptual means to organize this awareness, one simple explanation is it just suddenly appeared. This was correct in the sense that it did suddenly appear in the archives of human history.

Look at the news programs, today. Say a presidential candidate is discovered to cross dress. Once that is revealed, all the experts line up to analyze this. The amount of data and opinion generated by this trigger is enough to fill a truck. But it won't happen until the trigger induce the reaction. In genesis all that was needed was sort of a news trigger and a mind capable of extrapolation. In this case, thy used the eyes as a sensory tool to scan, see and become aware. It must have been quite a rush and overload that humbled them to higher powers that made all this just appear with blazing speed.
Reply With Quote
 
» Advertisement
» Current Poll
Who's the sexiest man alive? Johnny Depp or Robert Pattinson?
Johnny Depp - 27.27%
3 Votes
Robert Pattinson - 0%
0 Votes
Someone else (please specify) - 45.45%
5 Votes
I'm too macho to think a guy is sexy - 27.27%
3 Votes
Total Votes: 11
You may not vote on this poll.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:00 PM.

Hypography?

Hypography [n.]: A combination of "hyperlink" and "bibliography" - ie, a list of links to electronic documents. Comparable to discography and bibliography, but not cartography.

We have been online since May 2000, and aim to be the best place to find and share science-related content of all kinds.

Share the love!

Please add more science to your life. Use our RSS feeds on your blog, your portal, or your favorite feedreader!


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2000-2009 Hypography
Part of the Hypography - Science for Everyone Network