Evolution or Creation

[Arcesious]

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.

 

I suppose that, ultimately, it doesn't. But the thing is that the equation is already complete and functioning, and doesn't need anything else added into it for it to work. Abiogenesis is pure chemical reactions forming organic molecules. I'll say this next set of sentences hypothetically, since abiogenesis is just a bunch of ideas not irrefutably confirmed. Basically you have the basic compounds for life, starting out in one or several different hypothesized ideal environments suggested as possible starting points for abiogenesis. As anyone would well know, chemistry includes chain reactions among various elements and environmental stimuli. So you start out with the base elements of this planet's lifeforms - carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, etc, etc; as well as the conditions of pre-life Earth.

 

Considering this, these elements and compounds undergo chain reactions, and you get the first organic molecules. Eventually, if these molecules came into contact with each other, more chain reactiosn would occur. The hardest part in this is for the molecules to form in the first cells. I don't know much about that. But before evolution can begin, these cells have to become complex enough from chemical reactions in order to undergo the simplist possible processes of evolution. Again, not much is known at this point, and it's all hypothetical. But the matter of the fact is that it is possible for this to happen. This experiment is the most well known example of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

 

There's also the Strecker synthesis and Butlerov's reaction to note.

 

Edit: My understanding of the formation of the first cells was incorrect/incomplete, considering this: http://library.thinkquest.org/C004535/on_the_origin_of_cells.html

 

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.

 

Yes, but who knows? In the future, there may be a third or more possibilities besides these two. The problem is that a diety is a non-quantifiable equation, but we can quantify matter and energy and put them into equations that make sense and can consistently be tested and observed.

 

Edit: Still, I agree that the idea of a diety being part of the equation should be considered, for the sake or argument. However, not much will be gained by doing so, because the diety(s) that may or may not exist cannot be scientifically observed.

 

I will not say that it's impossible for a diety to be part of the equations here, but I am saying that it seems like a waste of time to put them into the equations because it won't contribute anything research-wise. All it would do is over-complicate everything. It's like trying to fix something that doesn't need to be fixed.

 

 

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...

 

Yes, I'm repeating it. I can understand what you mean here though. I'm not meaning to plagerize whomever first said it. But I suppose I may unintentionally have done so. The phrase 'teach the controversy' just seemed to fit well to say what I wanted to say in my post. Ironically, after looking it up, I've found that the phrase actually originated as the name of a Discovery Institute campaign to promote intelligent design and discredit evolution.

 

The controversy I meant to refer to was weather or not to teach about the theorized evolution of humans in the classroom.

 

I'll have to try to be more careful with what phrases I use, lest I encounter an irony like this again.

 

"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.

 

Yes, I agree that people have done great things because of their religious beleifs. Which is why I haven't debated religion itself in this thread. I don't want to accidentally generalize and commit the logical fallacy of 'guilty by association'.

[Totenkopf]

Yes, but who knows? In the future, there may be a third or more possibilities besides these two. The problem is that a diety is a non-quantifiable equation, but we can quantify matter and energy and put them into equations that make sense and can consistently be tested and observed.

Yes, I'm repeating it. I can understand what you mean here though. I'm not meaning to plagerize whomever first said it. But I suppose I may unintentionally have done so. The phrase 'teach the controversy' just seemed to fit well to say what I wanted to say in my post. Ironically, after looking it up, I've found that the phrase actually originated as the name of a Discovery Institute campaign to promote intelligent design and discredit evolution.

The controversy I meant to refer to was weather or not to teach about the theorized evolution of humans in the classroom.

I'll have to try to more careful with what phrases I use, lest I encounter an irony like this again.

 

Well, I suspect that everything will ultimatley boil down to either of those 2 in the end. As to the "teach the controversy" bit, I wasn't saying don't teach the "controversy", I said don't teach it as fact. It's a fine theory as things go, and may ultimately prove to be a fact....just not quite yet.

[Darth_Yuthura]

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.

 

In regards to that last statement... that's not creationism. No, I'm not going even further in that direction. In that being stated, I would not have ranted about you being for creationism because that assumes that evolution took place. When you started injecting about god starting evolution on its course, then humans are not his creations. They are merely secondary products of evolution... of which we do not know where it all began.

 

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.

 

Well I defined creationism and made it clear that it either is that or evolution. You said I was mistaken... I wasn't. I did not say that evolution means there is no god; I said that with evolution disproves creationism.

 

-If evolution began naturally (or because of god doesn't matter) so long as it is assumed we evolved over millions of years.

 

-It's only when people assume God created Earth 10,000 years ago... evolution did not take place and it that is creationism.

 

I think you didn't articulate what was saying, assuming I got something wrong, that you stepped in and made 'corrections,' not knowing that it disrupted the point I was trying to make.

 

Evolution vs. Creationism = Only one can be correct

Evolution being the result of a creation of god ≠ Creationism

 

Does this clarify things?

 

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.

 

Well it's not as though religion has done any better and has in fact slowed down our search for the truth in the past. No, science can't disprove divine creation; but it also can't disprove that I'm a god in human form who took corporeal form to communicate with humans.

 

Sounds ridiculous, as intended, but that could be just as difficult to disprove as a religion that millions believe in. So a lack of evidence is not really grounds for anything beyond the scale of one's imagination.

[Jae Onasi]

Keep it civil, folks. There's no need to make personal attacks or snarky statements, and the staff has noticed an increase in both in this thread. This is one subject that can get really heated, and I would urge all of you to take the time to make your responses as respectful as possible so that your points are communicated without the distraction of flaming of trolling. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

 

Here's the issue: There are different philosophies of creation, just like there are different philosophies within evolution, so you can't put this into either 'young-earth creationism', which I think Darth_Yuthura is thinking here, or 'strict' evolution.

There is strict non-deistic macroevolution, non-deistic microevolution, theistic evolution, progressive creationism (similar to theistic evolution but without transitional species, since there are no fossil records of transitional species), literal six-day old-earth creationism, and literal six-day new-earth creationism, and permutations of all those in between, and this isn't even addressing creation philosophies from other religions.

 

All of these will always be theories. Why? We can't go back in time to see how it really happened to prove which theory is correct. Anyone who says any of these theories is 'fact' would be incorrect.

[Bimmerman]

Here's the issue: There are different philosophies of creation, just like there are different philosophies within evolution, so you can't put this into either 'young-earth creationism', which I think Darth_Yuthura is thinking here, or 'strict' evolution.

There is strict non-deistic macroevolution, non-deistic microevolution, theistic evolution, progressive creationism (similar to theistic evolution but without transitional species, since there are no fossil records of transitional species), literal six-day old-earth creationism, and literal six-day new-earth creationism, and permutations of all those in between, and this isn't even addressing creation philosophies from other religions.

 

All of these will always be theories. Why? We can't go back in time to see how it really happened to prove which theory is correct. Anyone who says any of these theories is 'fact' would be incorrect.

 

Very well said. There are many different interpretations, viewpoints, and opinions on all sides of this debate. What I don't understand is how some people aren't capable of realizing there is a difference between believing in creationism of some kind and being a Christian (for the record, not that it should matter to this debate but yet somehow it does, I'm....going to let you come to your own conclusions on what I hold to be true). Christianity is hardly the only religion that has a creation myth or story. Hell, they're hardly the only group! Native Americans have a creation story, Christianity has one, the Mayans and Aztecs have/had one, Hindus have one, and though I haven't heard one, I'm sure the eastern religions do. The only difference though, is that the other creation myths aren't foisted on society as literal truth like the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim one is. Just because most people believe it doesn't make it right...and that applies to science as well as matters of faith.

 

Since there are many interpretations and theories behind Evolution, and literally thousands of creation myths, who is to say which is right among any of them? Is some arrogant blowhard like Richard Dawkins more correct than someone like James Dobson since he worships at the altar of Science instead of the altar of Jesus? Um...no. Neither, honestly, are credible, and are really just a waste of space, text, and air. That may have been a bit harsh, but the extremes on both sides could learn a lot from one another, and would do well to tone down their obscenely self-serving and hypocritical rhetoric.

 

"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.

 

Very good quote. I find too many people nowadays have no grounding in history, which seriously weakens any argument they try to make. Understanding history reveals insight into why things are the way they are, what happened back when, the formative moments behind X, and how especially mythology, religions, language, science, and math (among others, naturally) have changed and shifted and morphed through the decades. It really troubles me how few people have any notion of history.

 

 

As for evolution vs creationism, as I've said previously, I have no problem with people believing what they want. I may not agree, but that's my and your right. What I don't agree with is 'teaching the controversy' side by side in a science classroom. From a scientific standpoint, there is no controversy, so myths and religion should be taught in their respective classroom. Also, if one truly is to teach creation, it should compromise all the different myths from different cultures fairly and neutrally, not just the Christian/Jewish/Muslim one.

[Darth_Yuthura]

literal six-day old-earth creationism, and literal six-day new-earth creationism, and permutations of all those in between, and this isn't even addressing creation philosophies from other religions.

 

All of these will always be theories.

 

Sorry, but those are not theories. What you speak of have never gone beyond hypothesis. The Theory of evolution is such because there is evidence to support it. That evidence doesn't prove it to be fact, but it shows there's more to it than just a guess.

 

As for virtually all the religious creation scenarios, none can go beyond 'hypothesis' without evidence. And there often is a substancial amount of counter evidence that maybe doesn't exactly disprove anything, but certainly doesn't support the supernatural.

[Darth Avlectus]

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.

 

This is very true. Probably is reason for why people are finding crosses between the two instead of opposition as previously accepted by both sides.

 

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.

It takes for granted what is happening has always happened, and always will.

This is an opening door (one of probably several I don't know of yet) for the philosophy of existentialism. Existentialism to the best I can tell is the belief that what is happening has always happened and will always happen. Just simply is, no why or how. Which is fine until under sway of this theory, one begins to preach questioning, objectivity, and skepticism.

 

What I find ironic, is that many (young) investigative and questioning minds subscribe to it. At least I notice this in universities and community colleges. This is the one thing they won't question and just accept like a postulate. Then again, I keep hearing that scientific minds ask how but are unconcerned with why.

 

 

One does not need to be psychotic or an extremist to harm others.

 

Actually, isn't there some kind of saying that the only thing needed for evil men to succeed, is for good men men to do nothing?

 

For those who do not believe in good and evil replace:

evil men with men of folly

good men with men of merit

etc.

 

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

 

~ Mohandas Gandhi

 

Actually, that is a good point. Part of what makes christianity so unbelieveable is the unbelievability of it when people claim to it in the home and yet willfully tosses aside the virtues of it in the way they live outside home or church. I realize not everyone is perfect, though. Still imperfection is not an excuse to not strive.

 

Sorry, but those are not theories. What you speak of have never gone beyond hypothesis. The Theory of evolution is such because there is evidence to support it. That evidence doesn't prove it to be fact, but it shows there's more to it than just a guess.

 

As for virtually all the religious creation scenarios, none can go beyond 'hypothesis' without evidence. And there often is a substancial amount of counter evidence that maybe doesn't exactly disprove anything, but certainly doesn't support the supernatural.

 

So then, what, DY? Are you insinuating it is absolutely false or at least of lesser credibility? (You wouldn't say this in opposition to merely point this out.)

[Totenkopf]

In regards to that last statement... that's not creationism. No, I'm not going even further in that direction. In that being stated, I would not have ranted about you being for creationism because that assumes that evolution took place. When you started injecting about god starting evolution on its course, then humans are not his creations. They are merely secondary products of evolution... of which we do not know where it all began.

 

Hmm...I think the emboldened section below is where your wires are getting crossed.

 

I don't wish to insult someone for believing a god, but I just cannot comprehend how people who've accepted evolution could still believe in creation. I could believe someone who brings up something very peculiar that isn't explained by evolution, such as a fossil that doesn't conform to any organisms that existed at the time period it was found. Sentience is even something that I could believe went beyond evolution.

 

 

 

Well I defined creationism and made it clear that it either is that or evolution. You said I was mistaken... I wasn't. I did not say that evolution means there is no god; I said that with evolution disproves creationism.

-If evolution began naturally (or because of god doesn't matter) so long as it is assumed we evolved over millions of years.

-It's only when people assume God created Earth 10,000 years ago... evolution did not take place and it that is creationism.

I think you didn't articulate what was saying, assuming I got something wrong, that you stepped in and made 'corrections,' not knowing that it disrupted the point I was trying to make.

Evolution vs. Creationism = Only one can be correct

Evolution being the result of a creation of god ≠ Creationism

Does this clarify things?

 

 

You reference both creation and Creationism throughout and reject both. I granted early on that "Creationism" was incompatible with what we know and believe about T of E. Also stated that I didn't hold to Creationism. It is your apparent unintentional conflation of the two concepts that has led us to this point. I said you were mistaken in your absolute assertion that T of E was in effect indisputable fact and that there were effectively no alternatives. I never said, as you contend, that Creationism (ie YEC) was compatible with T of E.

 

Also, at the risk of upsetting you here, you're incorrect in asserting that if God did set evolution into play that man would not be a creation of his. If God did use evolution to unfold life as we know it, then all things natural are his creation.

 

Well it's not as though religion has done any better and has in fact slowed down our search for the truth in the past. No, science can't disprove divine creation; but it also can't disprove that I'm a god in human form who took corporeal form to communicate with humans.

Sounds ridiculous, as intended, but that could be just as difficult to disprove as a religion that millions believe in. So a lack of evidence is not really grounds for anything beyond the scale of one's imagination.

 

Not sure what your point here is as I wasn't defending religion.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Also, at the risk of upsetting you here, you're incorrect in asserting that if God did set evolution into play that man would not be a creation of his. If God did use evolution to unfold life as we know it, then all things natural are his creation.

 

No.

 

It would be like giving your grandfather credit for what your father/mother did in raising you. The grandfather could take credit for raising their son/daughter properly, but anything the son/daughter did on their own goes to their actions. You cannot say that God created humans if he actually didn't. You can proclaim that through evolution, creation(s) of god culminated to what are now humans. If he didn't create humans if evolution was the cause for our existence.

 

Not sure what your point here is as I wasn't defending religion.

 

Right, then what were you doing? It wasn't limited solely to declaring evolution wasn't fact; I can say that much.

 

The church and science are highly biassed towards one another; that I would agree on. The difference between the two is that science is an intellectual process where as religion is fictional/historical and not bound by any rules or regulations. You can't mix the two, so it's best not to even try.

 

It is your apparent unintentional conflation of the two concepts that has led us to this point. I said you were mistaken in your absolute assertion that T of E was in effect indisputable fact and that there were effectively no alternatives.

 

No that isn't so, but I see no point in debating *this* now. You're going to say I hadn't the vaguest idea what I meant. I'm going to keep saying you assumed something and altered exactly what I intended to what you wanted instead.

[Totenkopf]

It would be like giving your grandfather credit for what your father/mother did in raising you. The grandfather could take credit for raising their son/daughter properly, but anything the son/daughter did on their own goes to their actions. You cannot say that God created humans if he actually didn't. You can proclaim that through evolution, creation(s) of god culminated to what are now humans. If he didn't create humans if evolution was the cause for our existence.

 

Nice try, but wrong. More akin to me creating automated machinery to mass produce robots and then turning on a switch. I created the robots as well as the machinery.

 

 

Right, then what were you doing? It wasn't limited solely to declaring evolution wasn't fact; I can say that much.

 

Sticking a pin in your pretensions, perhaps. You were pontificating about what is/is not possible. You clearly don't have sufficient authority to rule anything out as you're merely human like the rest of us. As you acknowledged to mimartin, perhaps steering clear of absolute statements will cause you less headaches.

 

 

The church and science are highly biassed towards one another; that I would agree on. The difference between the two is that science is an intellectual process where as religion is fictional/historical and not bound by any rules or regulations. You can't mix the two, so it's best not to even try.

 

Relevancy?

 

No that isn't so, but I see no point in debating *this* now. You're going to say I hadn't the vaguest idea what I meant. I'm going to keep saying you assumed something and altered exactly what I intended to what you wanted instead.

 

Unfortunately for you it is the case and has been illustrated w/your own words. But perhaps we can just drop this and agree to disagree about where each of us think the other erred. Consider your own words before bothering to address this particular point again. Lest we engage in a "circular argument" of our own.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Nice try, but wrong. More akin to me creating automated machinery to mass produce robots and then turning on a switch. I created the robots as well as the machinery.

 

I don't see the metaphor. The universe isn't the same from one moment to the next. It is very dynamic and not a self-perpetuated and predictable machine producing exactly what you want, as you are suggesting. If I decided to go out and commit mass murder just to prove my point, I control my own actions... not god. That being so, I and everyone else fall outside the realm of what God is responsible for.

 

If God's responsibility ended with human actions...

 

If an animal changed its behavior because of human activity, then you should take that into account as to how our actions... assuming God wanted us to be more than drones... will affect the rest of nature as god didn't intend. That goes to show that we have free will and that humans can and do impact the galaxy in a way that god did not intend.

 

Unless god stepped in to facilitate the process of evolution, I really don't see how humans could be considered his creation. I still believe they are a creation of nature, as god didn't create us as he did in the bible. I can't explain the origins of life or the universe, but I hope we eventually find the answers to those questions.

 

Sticking a pin in your pretensions, perhaps. You were pontificating about what is/is not possible. You clearly don't have sufficient authority to rule anything out as you're merely human like the rest of us. As you acknowledged to mimartin, perhaps steering clear of absolute statements will cause you less headaches.

 

Go back and REREAD what I said. I used that absolute statement properly. I said Evolution and Creationism cannot both be right because one directly defeats the other. I did not (in fact I left open the possibility that God was involved) say that the acceptance of evolution meant that god didn't exist.

 

Would you say this is inaccurate?

[Darth Avlectus]

Sure, the theories do defeat one another, largely. I wouldn't say absolutely, though. I think most people who accept evolution as a tool for creationism are of the mind that creation fills in the blanks of evolutionary theory. Least that's what I got from people who can make sense out of both.

 

I'm just stating generally what I see. However, don't anyone let me speak for you: if you have it different, certainly say something.

 

It's largely a "Chicken or Egg;Which came first?" argument for what was the beginning if there was one (Existentialists don't believe there ever was). Creating beings that will evolve? Well, I'd say evolution is an extension of creation in that case, no? I guess I'm just having a hard time wrapping my brain around how the 2 are absolutely exclusive of each another...

[Jae Onasi]

I just don't see them as incompatible--the Bible says in the beginning God created light (Big Bang), along the way God created the sun, moon, earth (other stars, planets, etc., not inconsistent with our knowledge of cosmology), separated the land from the sea (development of our planet), made vegetation, animals, fish, and other living things (but doesn't describe HOW it's done--evolution could easily fit in here), and then made humans (not inconsistent with evolution--we're one of the latest to be made in the food chain).

 

What parts specifically are incompatible, keeping in mind that Genesis is not a science book, but rather an account of how God's developed His relationship with humans?

 

The Catholic church, which has the largest number of Christians in the world, has acknowledged evolution is not incompatible and has even apologized for its treatment of Galileo. If you're seeing evolution as incompatible with YEC, I'll agree with you on that, but otherwise I'm missing the incompatibilities you're describing.

[Darth_Yuthura]

It's largely a "Chicken or Egg;Which came first?" argument for what was the beginning if there was one (Existentialists don't believe there ever was). Creating beings that will evolve? Well, I'd say evolution is an extension of creation in that case, no? I guess I'm just having a hard time wrapping my brain around how the 2 are absolutely exclusive of each another...

 

Well if you really want a logical answer to that, it was the egg. Of course it wasn't literally as such, because proto-organisms lacked many of the qualities of organisms we know today. It was a very gradual transition which likely yielded things that couldn't reproduce, but that they formed from primordial reactions of chemicals and eventually there came a point when single celled organisms could sustain themselves and reproduce on their own... in theory. Not fact.

 

Sure, the theories do defeat one another, largely. I wouldn't say absolutely, though. I think most people who accept evolution as a tool for creationism are of the mind that creation fills in the blanks of evolutionary theory. Least that's what I got from people who can make sense out of both.

 

I can understand people using religion to fill the holes of what they don't know, but what you use to fill those holes shouldn't be treated the same as theories such as evolution. You can say there's a god if that's what you want to believe, but people should recognize that what you use to fill those holes may not be the same from one person to the next. You can show fossils and geographic records as evidence which others can't dispute. They can dispute the theories about how they came to be, but can't deny that the fossils exist.

[Ping]

I just don't see them as incompatible--the Bible says in the beginning God created light (Big Bang), along the way God created the sun, moon, earth (other stars, planets, etc., not inconsistent with our knowledge of cosmology), separated the land from the sea (development of our planet), made vegetation, animals, fish, and other living things (but doesn't describe HOW it's done--evolution could easily fit in here), and then made humans (not inconsistent with evolution--we're one of the latest to be made in the food chain).

 

What parts specifically are incompatible, keeping in mind that Genesis is not a science book, but rather an account of how God's developed His relationship with humans?

 

The Catholic church, which has the largest number of Christians in the world, has acknowledged evolution is not incompatible and has even apologized for its treatment of Galileo. If you're seeing evolution as incompatible with YEC, I'll agree with you on that, but otherwise I'm missing the incompatibilities you're describing.

 

Those are my feelings on evolution/creation. I mean, I believe in evolution, but creationism had to come in somewhere, otherwise it probably wouldn't be written down as such.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Those are my feelings on evolution/creation. I mean, I believe in evolution, but creationism had to come in somewhere, otherwise it probably wouldn't be written down as such.

 

'Creationism' is not properly used here. It is a belief, not an act. That belief revolves around the universe having been created by act of divine creation (I know it sounds identical, but it's not) rather than through nature or evolution. What you probably mean is that evolution took place following an act taken by God started it all in motion.

 

What you speak of is not creationism. Is it that you believe in god, but that his divine creations were our genetic ancestors and not humans?

[Samuel Dravis]

The term creationism is not limited in its use to those who believe that God created humans "ready-made." Broadly it denotes anyone who believes that the universe was the creative act of a God, regardless of any particular mode of creation. Anyone who believes this, theistic evolutionists included, are creationists, although they are not necessarily "young earth creationists."

[Jae Onasi]

'Creationism' is not properly used here. It is a belief, not an act. That belief revolves around the universe having been created by act of divine creation (I know it sounds identical, but it's not) rather than through nature or evolution. What you probably mean is that evolution took place following an act taken by God started it all in motion.

 

What you speak of is not creationism. Is it that you believe in god, but that his divine creations were our genetic ancestors and not humans?

You're thinking deistic evolution here--God set the clock in motion and let it go. Progressive creationism theorizes that God created each species separately in a guided process, albeit over a long period of time and in a pattern that we see in the fossil record. The distinction is subtle.

[Darth_Yuthura]

The term creationism is not limited in its use to those who believe that God created humans "ready-made." Broadly it denotes anyone who believes that the universe was the creative act of a God, regardless of any particular mode of creation. Anyone who believes this, theistic evolutionists included, are creationists, although they are not necessarily "young earth creationists."

 

If that's so, then what's the point of this thread? You might as well have just called it "Does god exist or not?" If he did, then it really doesn't matter... an omnipotent being could just as easily have created the universe as it was 10 billion years ago, or as it is now. The 'young earth creationism' is just as plausible as any other hypothesis that he initiated the big bang.

 

You're thinking deistic evolution here--God set the clock in motion and let it go. Progressive creationism theorizes that God created each species separately in a guided process, albeit over a long period of time and in a pattern that we see in the fossil record. The distinction is subtle.

 

That doesn't make sense. If he just wanted to create humans in his own form, then why did he create so much else on top of it all? It wouldn't have made much difference to us if the billions of other stars in the universe never existed. He'd just have to throw in a few bits of heavier elements from now-dead stars into the solar system for the same results.

 

It's obvious where I stand in this, but I really dislike how evidence can be dismissed or integrated as desired with virtually any hypothesis. Evolution... god projected it would amount to humans. Young earth... God had the means to make the world look much older than it actually is. 'Let there be light'... could be the big bang. Any indiscrepancies in the bible is explained by humans misinterpreting god's words.

 

I am biased towards religion, yes; but it's because these are simple answers that have no proof. All of which depend upon whether God is omnipotent or if there is a natural explanation for it all. Just because we don't know the answers yet doesn't exactly mean we should assume it's supernatural until the scientific method disproves it. Something that is unknown should be regarded as unknown until proven otherwise. Science should be setting out to find out what remains unknown; not having to disprove something like religion as well. Although POSSIBLE, the supernatural is as yet only a human-generated concept.

[Jae Onasi]

The point of this thread from the OP's point of view was to discuss who believed what and why.

[Samuel Dravis]

If that's so, then what's the point of this thread? You might as well have just called it "Does god exist or not?" If he did, then it really doesn't matter... an omnipotent being could just as easily have created the universe as it was 10 billion years ago, or as it is now. The 'young earth creationism' is just as plausible as any other hypothesis that he initiated the big bang.

If by, "just as plausible" you mean, "have no differentiable physical evidence for either idea" then yes, that's quite true. You'll remember that neither idea is scientific theory but religious mythology. But the debate in theological circles seems to be whether one idea or another is compatible in with God's nature, and there is room for discussion there.

 

An example of an argument on this is just that creating everything ex nihilo five minutes ago, even people's memories, is incompatible with the idea that God cannot deceive. Additionally, the idea that God created people with the capacity for reasoning implies that he would not purposefully steer our reasoning wrongly by presenting a situation in which we could not possibly utilize it, etc. So you see, some ideas are not quite so plausible as others.

[Darth_Yuthura]

So you see, some ideas are not quite so plausible as others.

 

Correction: It is within God's means, assuming he's omnipotent, to reasonably assume he either used creationism or evolution to produce humans.

[Web Rider]

An example of an argument on this is just that creating everything ex nihilo five minutes ago, even people's memories, is incompatible with the idea that God cannot deceive. Additionally, the idea that God created people with the capacity for reasoning implies that he would not purposefully steer our reasoning wrongly by presenting a situation in which we could not possibly utilize it, etc. So you see, some ideas are not quite so plausible as others.

 

If God cannot deceive, then he is not God. If God simply chooses not to deceive, then we have no assurance that he will never deceive. And if He did, He's God, so it really doesn't matter because He probably did it well enough so that we'd all buy it.

 

A lower probability does not make it safe to assume the situation did not happen. Just because I have a 1 in a billion chance to be struck by a meteor, does not mean that it can't happen.

[Q]

He can deceive, alright.

 

He wasn't being honest with Abraham when he told him to sacrifice Isaac to him.

[Samuel Dravis]

If God cannot deceive, then he is not God. If God simply chooses not to deceive, then we have no assurance that he will never deceive. And if He did, He's God, so it really doesn't matter because He probably did it well enough so that we'd all buy it.

There may exist some conception of God such that he can lie in that way. Typically, however, I think of God's abilities as rather Catholic in character, hence my examples. Given that it'd be a fallacy to swap ideas of God mid-argument, it's possible to argue a point one way or another for a particular concept of God.

 

A lower probability does not make it safe to assume the situation did not happen. Just because I have a 1 in a billion chance to be struck by a meteor, does not mean that it can't happen.

Indeed. Which is why more formal arguments generally depend on logical necessity; e.g., God could not lie, etc., could not act evilly, could not "decide on" moral law. Such arguments are possible only because the issue is conceptual and not empirical. As I said to Darth Yuthura, it's a discussion on religious mythology, not empirical facts.

 

Correction: It is within God's means, assuming he's omnipotent, to reasonably assume he either used creationism or evolution to produce humans.

I thought I had just explained that, under some concepts of God, the two options as you have given them do not exist.