Jump to content

Home

Evolution or Creation


DarthSion399

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 171
  • Created
  • Last Reply

There was several other threads here in Kavar's on this subject before, and the Senate. Similarly related, anyways.

 

I'd say while it's a good theory and there might be scientific evidence to back up claims of evolution, it still doesn't cover everything.

You also have folks who say that because creationism cannot be proven it is therefore false, and those who say likewise the opposite about disproving it. Faithful will take it on faith; Those not faithful won't.

 

I'm nondenominational. So I'll say while evolution might have its truths, it had to be created in the first place. :carms:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the past I was ardently for evolution, but i've mellowed a little bit since. I don't support creationism in any way, but i'm not as likely to jump down a Creationist's throat as I once was.

 

So, Evolution, I guess, but i'm not going to get bent of out shape because others disagree with it. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evolution, because we couldn't have possibly popped into existence from a rib of God.

 

And evolutions main arguments that had me sold on the theory is the similarity between monkey and human DNA. 99% match, IIRC. That practically proved that we were once apes who threw poo at each other. Eventually, the apes that we see in the zoo will see new apes in a zoo, while we move on to the next stage of evolution.

 

And since we've already had several topic about this, why don't we spice this one up? What do you think the next step in our evolution is? (if you believe in evolution)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evolution.

 

Also I'm fairly knowledgeable of the bible but I am far from a Christian.

 

Evolution, because we couldn't have possibly popped into existence from a rib of God.

Man was created from clay and woman was created by the rib of man, according to the Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am Creationist, Christian more specifically. I know a few things on Evolution, even if I don't agree with it, it's wise to know other's beliefs so that if you get into a debate concerning things like Evolution Vs. Creation, you at least know what you're debating against.

 

I'm still very Creationist, though:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evolution (and abiogenesis since people love to lump it with evolution). Simply because despite spending way to much time looking for evidence for creationism, I didn't find any.

 

it still doesn't cover everything.

 

Like what?

 

and those who say likewise the opposite about disproving it.

 

*is very interested in learning how to prove a negative*

 

So I'll say while evolution might have its truths, it had to be created in the first place.

 

Evolution doesen't give a damn about creation, see abiogenesis for that, so no need to worry about the creation bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evolution, because creationists rarely provide ample, structured proof to support their claims

QFT. I feel exactly that way. Microevolution has also been proven, so that just strengthens my opnions on evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evolution doesen't give a damn about creation, see abiogenesis for that, so no need to worry about the creation bit.

 

Exactly.

 

And same can be said for creation, as a creator had to be created from another creator with that logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this meant to be a real topic? I don't wish to offend anyone's beliefs, but this is not the kind of subject that really is open to debate.

 

Considering that there are an infinite number of possible explanations for the origins of the universe if you were to answer it with the Creationist Theory, how can you trust any one to be more reliable than the others? The Native American beliefs of the Universe are just as valid as the Christian beliefs, yet they greatly conflict with one another. Therefore they can't both be right. Why does the Christian automatically beat out all the others?

 

There is however one and only one explanation if you were to use the Scientific method. There are often many theories that conflict with one another, but that is attributed to the lack of evidence(due to being destroyed with time) As more proof and evidence are evaluated; answers are only a matter of debate. The issue is finding the right combination of evidence that fits the appropriate theory, or adjusting the theory to fit what is known.

 

I would support the scientific theory solely because it actually explains how the universe came to be without holding to outdated mores when new knowledge is presented. That and it only yields ONE solution based on available evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am actually a firm believer that it was a combination of both creation and evolution...I believe that something had to put the stuff there (un-evolved organisms created by God) and then they evolved from there...

 

That's just what I believe...I don't usually try to argue my position against anything because it's another one of those fruitless arguments that will go nowhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It CAN'T be both.

 

One theory is that the Earth was the center of the universe and that it was only 10,000 years old.

 

One theory of the Sun was that it underwent a form of compression that generated its heat, and that it could only be active for a matter of say... 10,000 years. But samples of uranium have shown that the Earth was at least a few billion years old, so that theory went bust. It also proved that the Earth... or at least that sample of uranium was much older than the bible ever mentioned.

 

The only other explanation was that the sample existed somewhere else and wasn't on Earth when it was created. That brings up the next logical question... how did it come to be if it weren't created along with Earth 3.4 billion years ago? (That was the age of the rock by the way, not the planet) Since there were no better explanations other than that is was created at the same time Earth was, it is scientifically accurate to say the bible underestimated the age of the planet by about 40 million fold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It CAN'T be both.
Yes, it can. The creation myth in Genesis has to be thrown out the window, but other than that, the concept of evolution can rest perfectly with the belief of a deistic God. In fact, I'd probably say that all of the complexities of evolution could only be attributed to the omnipotent/scient design of a god, orchestrated without any divine intervention. That sort of God would most certainly trump the Abrahamic concept of God, as any supposed "supreme being" that needs to directly intervene with life every few millennia is most certainly not as supreme as he claims to be.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It could very well be both if the fundamentalist dogma is dispensed with.

 

With all due respect, it is religion that plants itself as a maxim by which all other conflicting beliefs are wrong. The very basis for religion is that it is a construct where as science depends upon evidence and proof.

 

I would be more willing to accept religion if the bible were updated to take into account that the Earth actually is billions of years old, there never was a great flood, and all the other events that clearly couldn't have happened. I would not take that as the truth, but I would be more accepting of religion if it weren't so fixed on maintaining a version of history that they know isn't true.

 

There never was a great flood... there are places on the Earth that haven't been flooded in a million years. The whole Adam and Eve origins don't make any sense at any level. When you have ONE god who can make anything happen, then the whole basis for everything becomes meaningless. You can use god to answer any question and it would essentially qualify as possible or an explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Pope John Paul II has actually stated that not all aspects of evolutionary theory are incompatible nor incorrect in relation to Catholicism (usually the more strict Christian wing)...

 

"...new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis."

~Pope John Paul II

 

(I'm not Catholic and usually don't conform to it's ideas...I'm Methodist...but a Pope saying something like that is revolutionary and important)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even as a Christian I can not deny the undeniable evidence, so I believe in evolution despite my ability to suspend my desire for evidence in other cases.

 

 

(This BBCode requires its accompanying plugin to work properly.)

 

Should you desire more information on this subject, may I suggest this?

 

(This BBCode requires its accompanying plugin to work properly.)

 

(This BBCode requires its accompanying plugin to work properly.)

 

(This BBCode requires its accompanying plugin to work properly.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...