Evolution or Creation

[EnderWiggin]

I am a Christian. I believe in Creation. I dismiss evolution completely. That is that.

I don't think that people are trying to claim that they're Creationists who believe in evolution, since they're diametrically opposed. However, I can claim that I'm a Christian who believes (as I said) in evolution as a tool.

 

Genesis isn't a science book, and never was meant to be. The Hebrew is fluid in its meaning of 'day', for instance--it can mean a literal 24 hour day or it can mean an unspecified long period of time, sort of like when we say "back in my grandfather's day....". That is why I don't find creationism and evolutionism to be at odds with each other.

 

I agree.

 

_EW_

[Nedak]

That guy is smart. I like his reasoning.

Creation: 1.

Evolution: 0.

 

 

 

I pray to god (no pun intended) that's a sarcastic post.

 

EDIT:

 

Here is a fun video with that video in it.

 

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

[Darth_Yuthura]

That guy is smart. I like his reasoning.

Creation: 0.

Evolution: 1.

 

Well don't thank god; thank the process of evolution.

 

Mind you that the purpose of fruit is so that animals would take one and spread the seeds. The banana example actually goes to the credit of a species adapting to best spread its seeds and improve its ability to produce offspring. Of course I am referring to the 'tab' and peel aspects of a banana, not the inedible and loaded with seeds aspect. Humans can take credit for that.

 

Okay, I just saw the video in the last post. I greatly appreciate these kind of debates... if you would call it such.

[Totenkopf]

@DY/Arc--when people speak of Creationism it's mostly in terms of "God created the world 5-10K years ago and weathered it to fool all the atheists and whatnot". You 2 should read more closely rather than resort to knee jerk positions. I did not say take the theory of evolution out of science class. I said Evolution Theory as Fact should not be pushed, w/regard to where man came from. It can still be taught as the best current scientific theory available. Frankly, it's fatuous to claim that evolution and creation (not Creationism as we've already covered, afterall OEC doesn't really fly in the face of evolution like the YEC that gets anti-creationists all hot and bothered) are inherently incompatible. Noone was around when all this glorious stuff came into being and thus is in no position to make an emphatic and rational claim to its origins. And frankly, it's rather silly to get that worked up over something no one has the answer to anyway. Until we find the "missing link/s" that shows man came from amoeba via monkeys, I'm content to consider it (evolution) a possibility. Afterall, give man a billion + years from today and we might come up with nifty junk too.

 

 

As to science and belief in the classroom, agreed, The whole man came from monkeys and amoebae should be shelved until the evidence is conclusive and irrefutable. Present that side of evolution as a possibility (strong or otherwise), not an irrefutable fact. I'm not against theories put forth as theories which are constantly being tested for veracity (afterall, many of the claims of religions are often untestable/unrepeatable and therefore don't belong in a science class).

[Darth_Yuthura]

@DY/Arc--when people speak of Creationism it's mostly in terms of "God created the world 5-10K years ago and weathered it to fool all the atheists and whatnot"

 

Okay, why did God do this? What reason would he want to fool atheists?

 

You 2 should read more closely rather than resort to knee jerk positions. I did not say take the theory of evolution out of science class. I said Evolution Theory as Fact should not be pushed, w/regard to where man came from.

 

Well you speak of creation(ism) - Whatever term you want to plug in this time) as though it is also a theory that can stand beside evolution; it's not.

 

Frankly, it's fatuous to claim that evolution and creation (not Creationism as we've already covered, afterall OEC doesn't really fly in the face of evolution like the YEC that gets anti-creationists all hot and bothered) are inherently incompatible

 

Define 'Creation' and then define 'Creationism' and explain how your term fits and the other does not. I know exactly what I said. If you're going to make a fuss because I put forth something that hurts your side of the matter... please don't. I'm not going to change my argument simply to fit your sense of logic.

 

No one was around when all this glorious stuff came into being and thus is in no position to make an emphatic and rational claim to its origins. And frankly, it's rather silly to get that worked up over something no one has the answer to anyway.

 

No, but you can evaluate evidence and come to a logical conclusion as to what happened. The problem is that evidence often gets destroyed or lost with time. That makes it more difficult to answer such questions as to where we came from, but history has shown that the more we evaluate available evidence and the more we find, the more reliable our final answer will be. And quite frankly, it's horrid to see people willingly refuse to acknowledge evidence when it is presented in favor of something that is purely mythical.

 

If God wanted such evidence from being discovered by humans, he would have done so... or did he make a mistake? A perfect circular argument, I must say so myself.

 

Until we find the "missing link/s" that shows man came from amoeba via monkeys, I'm content to consider it (evolution) a possibility. Afterall, give man a billion + years from today and we might come up with nifty junk too.

 

I would properly say that evolution is still only a theory, but it is a theory that is supported by much much more evidence than anything an alternate theory has yielded. Unless that changes, I would not have anything riddled with as many holes as Creation(ism) daring to be called a theory.

[Web Rider]

Read Genesis.

All of creation was originally meant to be vegetarians. That includes all animals.

 

You only have oh, 90% of Christians disagreeing with you on that point. And before you know "well how many Christians do you know?" A lot. I was one of like 10 Atheists in my conservative christian town. Also in before: "they're wrong." When the majority of a religion disagrees with what a single member says, the religion is not wrong.

[Totenkopf]

Okay, why did God do this? What reason would he want to fool atheists?

 

You so clueless you don't recognize a little levity?

 

Well you speak of creation(ism) - Whatever term you want to plug in this time) as though it is also a theory that can stand beside evolution; it's not.

Frankly, I make no claims of anything. The point is you mix up creationism (the fundamentalist biblical version) with the concept of a creator. That's all that's been pointed out to you from the beginning. If a God/god exists, who are you to define the method by which they would make or develop anything.

I don't state that God created the universe, merely consider that it's a possibility. Given that we don't know where all the matter and energy in the universe comes from in the first place it would be extremely arrogant to think we can eliminate any possibilities that science can't disprove (For instance, we know that Superman is a modern human creation and therefore science knows---and can disprove--he created the universe....if anyone were willing to assert such a notion).

 

I know exactly what I said. If you're going to make a fuss because I put forth something that hurts your side of the matter... please don't. I'm not going to change my argument simply to fit your sense of logic.

 

No offense, but that sounds extremely pretentious.

 

 

No, but we can evaluate evidence and come to a reasonable conclusion of what happened. If evidence is destroyed or lost, then it becomes more difficult and the number of possible answers could rival the number of theories that exist. The more we evaluate the evidence, the more reliable our final answer would be. And quite frankly, it's rather sad to see people willingly refuse to acknowledge evidence when it is presented in favor of something that is purely mythical.

 

I'm afraid you have a reading comprehension problem if you're continuing to assert that I am anti-evolution. I've already stated that that is one method for explaining the diversty of how life around us has developed. Evolution, however, doesn't explain where everything came from though. That's still key. And the big weakness in your argument.

 

If God wanted to hide the evidence, he would have... or did he make a mistake? A solid circular argument, I must say so myself.

 

Good thing you're the one making it then, huh?

 

I would properly say that evolution is still only a theory, but it is a theory that is supported by much much more evidence than anything an alternate theory has yielded. Unless that changes, I would not have anything riddled with as many holes as Creation(ism) daring to be called a theory.

 

And as I don't hold to the "theory of Creationism", we don't seem to have a real problem. As long as you recognize that Evolution theory is a WIP, I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.

[Arcesious]

Evolution, however, doesn't explain where everything came from though. That's still key. And the big weakness in your argument.

 

I thought someone already mentioned abiogenesis in this thread, somewhere... The theory of evolution does not try to explain the initial origin(s) of life. The origin of life is left in the realm of the ideas posed by abiogenesis.

[Totenkopf]

Frankly, that's my point. Evolution as a theory dosen't remove the possibility of a creator from the equation. Even abiogenesis doesn't answer where all the life and matter/energy in the universe comes from. It too is a process that attempts to explain how living things came into being from inanimate matter, but fails to say where all the stuff came from in the first place. We may never (very likely in our lifetimes) have the answer to that question.

[Web Rider]

Frankly, that's my point. Evolution as a theory dosen't remove the possibility of a creator from the equation.

It does not. People who say it does do not understand it. Which is why Evolution vs Creation arguments boil down to nonsense. Because we end up arguing apples and oranges.

 

Even abiogenesis doesn't answer where all the life and matter/energy in the universe comes from. It too is a process that attempts to explain how living things came into being from inanimate matter, but fails to say where all the stuff came from in the first place.

Which, like evolution, isn't it's point. Abiogenesis states in a nutshell, that life has the ability to simply "poof" into existence. It assumes that it just forms out of existing matter. It doesn't attempt to explain the origin of matter simply because that's not what it's supposed to do.

[Astor]

And quite frankly, it's horrid to see people willingly refuse to acknowledge evidence when it is presented in favor of something that is purely mythical.

 

It's called 'faith' for a reason. Why should it bother you if people choose to believe something different?

[Nedak]

It's called 'faith' for a reason. Why should it bother you if people choose to believe something different?

 

It doesn't bother me unless it hurts another person.

 

Which is what organized religion does.

[Trench]

It doesn't bother me unless it hurts another person.

 

Which is what organized religion does.

 

Your placing all "religious' groups within the bunch of psychotic extremists.

We are not all like that, and anyone who is has a warped sense of perception and shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence with a real Christian.

[Web Rider]

Your placing all "religious' groups within the bunch of psychotic extremists.

We are not all like that, and anyone who is has a warped sense of perception and shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence with a real Christian.

 

One does not need to be psychotic or an extremist to harm others. Harm does not only come in the form of physical violence. Take for example, Catholics on aid missions in Africa. As much as they want to stop the spread of AIDS, many are forbidden by their religion from giving out condoms. A simple and effective way to generally stop the spread of AIDS during intercourse.

 

These are generous, kind and overall, loving people, who are on the whole, blinded by their religion and not realizing the harm they're doing.

[Totenkopf]

I thought someone already mentioned abiogenesis in this thread, somewhere... The theory of evolution does not try to explain the initial origin(s) of life. The origin of life is left in the realm of the ideas posed by abiogenesis.

 

 

Abiogenesis states in a nutshell, that life has the ability to simply "poof" into existence. It assumes that it just forms out of existing matter. It doesn't attempt to explain the origin of matter simply because that's not what it's supposed to do.

 

 

Which was essentially my point to Arc. Both theories only relate to the rise of living matter. In the end we're only left with two likely possibilities: matter and energy have always existed or God/gods.

[Darth_Yuthura]

You so clueless you don't recognize a little levity?

 

I asked a serious question: why? From what I've gathered, saying he 'weathered the Earth' is nothing more than a cheap way of explaining away all the evidence of its true age without any logic whatsoever as to why god did it.

 

And as I don't hold to the "theory of Creationism", we don't seem to have a real problem. As long as you recognize that Evolution theory is a WIP, I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.

 

If you believe that god created the Earth and humans 10,000 years ago, then yes you do. You see this is why religion is so difficult; there's so much disarray that you can't determine if the other side knows what you're talking about, or if even they understand their own logic.

 

As I explained before, CREATIONISM relates to the origins of the universe or humans as being the result of divine creation RATHER THAN by natural processes. That is why you cannot have Creationism AND Evolution both exist simultaneously, because one directly counters the other. Get it right!

 

If in the event you simply are saying that 'Creation' as you call it is a possibility, I would rather say it's 'not an impossibility.' No matter how small it may be, it is not impossible that God exists. I admit that. Happy?

 

The problem with this argument is that some people are taking a lack of proof as cause to say 'disproven' and a WIP theory as grounds for not dispensing with something that is becoming increasingly unlikely. The more we know about the universe, the less likely it is that a supernatural being is responsible for everything.

 

Frankly, I make no claims of anything. The point is you mix up creationism (the fundamentalist biblical version) with the concept of a creator. That's all that's been pointed out to you from the beginning. If a God/god exists, who are you to define the method by which they would make or develop anything.

I don't state that God created the universe, merely consider that it's a possibility.

 

The whole God 'weathering the Earth to hide its age' is nothing beyond a circular argument. God can do anything so it doesn't matter that we can come to an alternate and natural conclusion that doesn't involve him at all.

 

Is it a possibility that he did create the universe? Yes, but given the lack of proof that he exists and the ever-growing wealth of knowledge that show that the Earth and humans came about naturally... it is becoming an increasingly unlikely outcome.

 

Given that we don't know where all the matter and energy in the universe comes from in the first place it would be extremely arrogant to think we can eliminate any possibilities that science can't disprove (For instance, we know that Superman is a modern human creation and therefore science knows---and can disprove--he created the universe....if anyone were willing to assert such a notion).

 

It'd be easier; Superman's origins are explained.

 

Then that brings up the next logical question: how did God come to exist? Now on top of figuring out where all the matter and energy originated, you now have to answer where God came from as well.

 

I'm afraid you have a reading comprehension problem if you're continuing to assert that I am anti-evolution. I've already stated that that is one method for explaining the diversty of how life around us has developed. Evolution, however, doesn't explain where everything came from though. That's still key. And the big weakness in your argument.

 

No, but you keep supporting an argument that's full of holes. And guess what, your argument has that very same weakness as evolution and is sorely lacking proof of any kind. If you're going to judge evolution so harshly, it's very hypocritical of you to not to judge your own argument by the same standards.

 

The idea that someone snapped their fingers and *poof* created humans and the Earth doesn't answer our origins, nor is it a theory. In order for that to work, you must first present something that proves it's possible. And according to the law of conservation of matter and energy, that cannot be done. No, we don't know where it all originally came from, but that is not the point of this thread.

[Q]

I'm seeing a pattern, here. People keep telling you that their idea of Creation doesn't fit into the dogmatic, literal interpretation of the Bible, and yet, you keep ignoring them and continue to spam the same extremely narrow-minded and completely incorrect assumption over and over.

I say teach the controversy

You say that? Really?

 

Are you sure that you're not merely repeating it, because I find it hauntingly familiar. I swear that I've seen those exact three words somewhere around here...

[Totenkopf]

@DY--I see no real point in continuing this discussion w/you b/c it's obvious that your inability to be able to disagree with others w/o taking it personally is clearly getting in the way. You demonstrated in various threads, including this one, that you don't bother to read carefully what you're responding to and proceed to set up a bunch of strawmen that, frankly, it doesn't matter whether you knock 'em down or not. Shadowboxing is about all it amounts to in the end. If you wish to continue this discussion, I suggest you go back and read carefully and rethink your arguments. Otherwise, continue with the diatribes and scratch your head wondering wtf nobody "gets" you. Till then....

[Quist]

Your placing all "religious' groups within the bunch of psychotic extremists.

We are not all like that, and anyone who is has a warped sense of perception and shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence with a real Christian.

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

 

~ Mohandas Gandhi

[Darth InSidious]

"It is the vague modern who is not at all certain what is right who is most certain that Dante was wrong. The serious opponent of the Latin Church in history, even in the act of showing that it produced great infamies, must know that it produced great saints. It is the hard-headed stockbroker, who knows no history and believes no religion, who is, nevertheless, perfectly convinced that all these priests are knaves." - G. K. Chesterton, Heretics, Concluding Remarks, 1905.

[Darth_Yuthura]

@DY--I see no real point in continuing this discussion w/you b/c it's obvious that your inability to be able to disagree with others w/o taking it personally is clearly getting in the way.

 

Oh please, this is an online forum! People aren't going to change what they believe based on what they read off of a thread from people they've never met. I knew from the start that no one was going to sway their opinion about this subject, one way or another. If you or anyone else changed what we believed based on what I or anyone else presented, then it must not have been a highly-valued belief.

 

Shadowboxing is about all it amounts to in the end.

 

Very perceptive. That's about all that an online argument ever amounts to. I actually kept myself open to this topic, even though I didn't agree with it because I wanted to understand WHY others came to a different conclusion, but I just don't have the... faith to understand the other side in this case.

 

I actually asked you to clarify what I was getting wrong about creationism, but you did not give me a proper answer. You condemned me for something that went beyond the scope of the topic presented.

 

If you wish to continue this discussion, I suggest you go back and read carefully and rethink your arguments. Otherwise, continue with the diatribes and scratch your head wondering wtf nobody "gets" you. Till then....

 

For the sake of it... I did that. I went back and evaluated what has already been stated.

 

I admit that I did not properly distinguish 'Creation' from 'Creationism' the first time I used either term. I have since the subject was brought up. I have since used Creationism in its proper context... despite what may be claimed. I can't address Totenkopf's issues because he has sought not to clarify what he wants... other than changing my argument to fit his sense of logic.

 

"It MUST be one or the other because creationism directly opposes anything that might be explained naturally." This is correct.

 

"Frankly, it's fatuous to claim that evolution and creation (not Creationism as we've already covered, afterall OEC doesn't really fly in the face of evolution like the YEC that gets anti-creationists all hot and bothered) are inherently incompatible."

~ This is also correct, but only because the term AND the outcome were altered.

 

And I am getting frustrated with the whole/creationism always being altered to another term that no one has bothered to properly define. I know the term I use, so don't proclaim I don't again.

[mimartin]

People aren't going to change what they believe based on what they read off of a thread from people they've never met. .

Darth_Yuthura – Why not use something like ~ Most people aren’t going to change what they believe based on what they read…” It paints you less in a corner and it gives people less opportunity to prove you wrong, because guess what? I’ve changed my mind based on what I read in this very forum. ET Warrior and Achilles proved me wrong and then got me to reexamine the facts and I change my perspective.

[Q]

And I am getting frustrated with the whole/creationism always being altered to another term that no one has bothered to properly define. I know the term I use, so don't proclaim I don't again.

I'm sorry, but could you please state the law that dictates that my beliefs or anyone else's must conform to your strict definition?

 

I must have missed it somewhere.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Why not use something like ~ Most people aren’t going to change what they believe based on what they read…”

 

Thank-you... 'avoid using absolute statements whenever possible.'

 

I just wanted to emphasize that I don't expect for something like one's implicit beliefs to easily change under conditions like these. At best, maybe get people thinking; but I did not seek, nor expect to convince many to see things my way if they do not already do.

 

All I can do is give my input and try not to be hostile, otherwise I shouldn't expect to be taken seriously.

 

I'm sorry, but could you please state the law that dictates that my beliefs or anyone else's must conform to your strict definition?

 

I'm not. Someone assumes I don't know what I'm talking about, but when I try to understand his perception of logic, he doesn't help much by saying I don't know wtf I'm talking about. Maybe he could instead explain why he thinks I'm wrong. I already know that he does, so saying the same thing again doesn't exactly clarify it any more than the first time.

 

I do recognize that he sought to not have evolution coined as fact and for 'creation' to be regarded as possible. I admitted that already. Now as for what I sought... which theory is backed by the most evidence. I've been burned for having 'flaws' in my debates, and now I want to address the flaws I see with the 'creation' theory.

[Totenkopf]

Nobody's has said (at least not me) you should change your opinion or ideas b/c of something you've read online. Another example of a wtf statement on your part. Part of your problem is that you're ascribing beliefs to me that I haven't claimed. I've merely pointed out the difference and your error in language in assessing the subject, as well as pointing out your arrogant presumption on the subject about what is and what isn't possible. Also, you're equally wrong about the "scope issue". The OP asked what peoples' opinions about Tof E was and then proceeded to state he was a creationist. That leaves a lot of room for the discussion to to bounce around. You knee-jerked assumed I was a "creationist" of the fundamentalist type and proceeded to go on one of your rants.

 

I suspect your presumption about what is proper and not has deepened your confusion. All the more so since I clearly indicated to you that I don't hold myself bound to YEC. I further stipulated that I had no problem with the Theory of Evolution being taught in class......so long as it was made clear that it was a theory. I further said that Creationism had no place in the science classroom. So, I'm naturally baffled by your vehement disagreement and attempt to shoehorn me into something I'm not. If you are confused by the term creationism (which you apparently still seem to think amounts to "poof"), google it. YEC is incompatible with what we understand about evolution, OEC sidesteps that problem by incorporating it into its paradigm. You have failed (don't feel too bad, so has science in general) to prove that a concept of divine creation is inherently impossible, even incompatible, with T of E. You merely assert, by fiat apparently, that it's impossible. In a nutshell you offer the false dichotomy: God or evolution. Seems to me that if God does exist, then by definition such an entity could in fact use evolution as a tool for devloping His/It's creations. Like you, I don't know where it all comes from. Unlike you, apprently, I can admit it.