Its good to see you back Mordred.
Oh I never really went anywhere
I'm more the listening type who likes to throw his two cents out every now and again. Plus I think I've got my answers as far as creationism goes, what it is (and what it isn't).
Creationism is basically belief that we and the earth were literally created by God.
Not so. Creationism is the belief that the universe, life, reality, etc. are too complex to have been conjured into existence all on their own and that they require a creator. Who that creator is is open for debate, since creation does not represent any one religion. When you say it's the belief that we were literally created by God (with a capital 'g') you seem to be suggesting the Christian god (correct me if I'm wrong). Arguably speaking, you could believe in the Ancient Greek deities (not that anyone does in this day and age) and still be a creationist. This much I know. It's how creation claims to be a science and what is scientific about it which I haven't yet acquired an answer to yet.
There are different viewpoints on it, though. Some take the days of creation as literally a day as we know it, some as each day being as 1,000 days (God's "time" although actually being eternal he doesn't have "time.") or, as we see it or its taught, no one knows how long each "day" or creative period was.
Yeah, but Jeanie, you're still using creation to represent Christianity and this simply isn't so. For the sake of argument, an entire panel of religious people, including Moslems, Hindus, Christians and many more, could represent one single creationist organization.
But as far as human history we believe that human history started the 6,000 years ago as stated.
Whoa, wait a second. Why do you believe this? Please don't interpret this as rudeness on my part but as I'm sure RAZD has mentioned in previous posts, there's a difference between reality and what we want things to be. There is so much evidence of civilizations (not just pre-civilization hunter/gatherer tribes but CIVILIZATIONS) of people predating 6,000 years. To deny that is like saying every historian, archeologist and anthropologist is a deceietful liar or somehow spent their entire education misinformed. In order to back up this sort of assertation (saying that humans have only existed for 6,00 years) you'd have to come up with a whole heck of a lot of facts! AND you'd have to disprove all the historians, geologists, and so on. I'm not being rude when I say that you must undersand how far fetched this is to me. If humans did not exist more than 6,000 years ago than God (of some religion or other) deliberately designed things to look like they existed more than 6,000 years ago.
I wholly respect your belief in God. I would never try to sway you from that. I, personally, don't believe in a god (though I don't really /not/ believe in one either - it's never been a big thing for me, though I like discussing it, which is why I'm here). However, when certain details come into play, like how clouds are formed or whether the sun revolves around the Earth or vice versa, and so on, which can very clearly be demonstrated, you have to respect that fact. So I ask you, politely and with kindness, why do you believe something like this about humans allegedly being only 6,000 years old as a species? Is it because you want to? I've met some people who openly say: Hey, you know what - I believe this and I don't really feel like looking deeper into the matter. This is what I believe and that's the end of it. Period.
And that's fair enough. But these people aren't the type to come on discussion boards and try to prove everyone else how they're right. They quitely hold their beliefs to themselves. This is what I mean about me not wanting to come across as though I'm questioning someone's religion. I'm not questioning yours, I promise I never will. It's the small details (or, well, not so small if you ask me), like saying humans have only been around 6,000 years. How can you disprove the mountain of evidence which indicates the contrary?
I don't believe in Jesus Christ. I see more historical evidence for Caligula and historical figures far predating the the common era than I do for Jesus Christ. But I will never say someone is wrong and try to disprove them in this way. That's their religion, their belief, just as I have mine. Nor do I believe there was ever one man and one woman whose names were Adam and Eve. That's my personal belief, I ask that you respect it, just as I respect your belief that they did exist. These are the things I'm not here to discuss. It's details which can be scientifically proven (is the Earth flat, and so on) which I think need to be addressed.
I don't know how you can account for the bones found, but I don't accept them as evidence personally.
You don't know how to account for them but refuse to accept them as evidence? Why? Have you done any research in that regard? If it's just something you don't feel like pursuing and are happy with your own beliefs, I think that's quite acceptable. But then I wouldn't recommend coming onto a discussion board and announcing that fact. Because someone else will show up and account for whichever bones we're discussing, and they might show you things which stray past your comfort zone. Honestly, Jeanie, and with no disrespect, it sounds as though you're basically saying you don't know how 'x' got here but you refuse to acknowledge it.
All the best.
Mordred
