Creationism vs. Evolution

[Kurtle Squad]

and I don't think people who believe heavily in scientific theories are willing to 'understand' creationism in general.

Do you reckon that's because there's nothing to understand?

[Jonwah]

That's quite funny in a way. And quite amazing in another way.

To be honest, I dislike the way missionaries often push christianity onto people because they think they're lesser than us.

 

Do you reckon that's because there's nothing to understand?

 

Oooh! We're just here for a fight are we?? Come on then, raise 'em!

Fisticuffs at dawn.

[Rummy]

I think these guys have probably got just as much of an idea of who or what God is as any other organised religion which professes to know:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6370991.stm

 

That is pretty interesting, it's like a whole new faith/religion was born! I find it even more ironic how that christian guy looks down upon it.

I kind of agree with Jonwah's post(he makes very good posts!), everybody seems completely unable to accept the other point of view here. Do any creationists even consider evolution to be a viable theory, or any evolutionists consider creationism to be a viable theory? Thats what really annoyed me about Kirk Cameron(thewayofthemaster thing I posted) the fact that they were so closedminded to any theories other than creationism, not that they believed in creationism.

[Jonwah]

I'm a '7 day creation' person, and I don't believe God allowed for cross-species evolution. I believe a species can evolve in a sense, so it can adapt to its surroundings. Hence different types of the same species. But a piece of bacteria to a human, no.

I have done research, a lot of it. And I have had an open mind and this is the conclusion I've come to. Sorry.

[Kurtle Squad]

I think these guys have probably got just as much of an idea of who or what God is as any other organised religion which professes to know:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6370991.stm

 

I found this bit especially ironic:

 

 

Hmm, indeed.

I seem to have overlooked this post (probably as it's the last on the page), it has a good point.

 

That actually makes me feel a lil kinda sick

 

It's really nice to see Americans welcome here since in so many places in the world we're not so welcome these days

Haha...I find it funny that they don't realise why.

[Shino]

I'm a '7 day creation' person, and I don't believe God allowed for cross-species evolution. I believe a species can evolve in a sense, so it can adapt to its surroundings. Hence different types of the same species. But a piece of bacteria to a human, no.

I have done research, a lot of it. And I have had an open mind and this is the conclusion I've come to. Sorry.

 

So a bacteria can evolve to a differente bacteria, but the new bacteria can't keep evolving until its a more complex form? Besides, there isn't a lot of research to do when it comes to faith.

[Kurtle Squad]

I'm a '7 day creation' person, and I don't believe God allowed for cross-species evolution. I believe a species can evolve in a sense, so it can adapt to its surroundings. Hence different types of the same species. But a piece of bacteria to a human, no.

I have done research, a lot of it. And I have had an open mind and this is the conclusion I've come to. Sorry.

Obviously not enough

You did add billions of years to your 'calculations' right?...And that bacteria's just a load of cells...like us?, and they change and evolve themselves, so what's to stop them evolving into more complicated creatures?

[Jonwah]

I'm not here to argue, I'm here to tell you my opinion.

I'm not here to sway anyone or anything like that.

If you don't agree with me, fair enough, the majority of the world won't do. But don't expect me to sit here and fight my corner like a child.

 

And I considered billions of years obviously, I'm not stupid. But I also came to the conclusion that we're only a few thousand years old. In my opinion.

[Shino]

I'm not here to argue, I'm here to tell you my opinion.

I'm not here to sway anyone or anything like that.

If you don't agree with me, fair enough, the majority of the world won't do. But don't expect me to sit here and fight my corner like a child.

 

And I considered billions of years obviously, I'm not stupid. But I also came to the conclusion that we're only a few thousand years old. In my opinion.

 

You can't discuss faith, but this forum has a high teenage population which doesn't understand that, and they're views tend to be more "strong" than we need.

[Supergrunch]

However I will point out the whole basis of religion is faith. Faith means there isn't an absolute conclusive fact or 100% certainty. Much in the way as science is often merely theorums. So realisticly we're both following a faith here.

When you say "theorums", I assume you mean "theroems". Ironically, a theorem is by definition proven to be true, so the word can only really apply to maths and there is definitely no faith involed.

 

But anyway, science is about using theories to model observed events. Hence these theories are not completely correct, but the best fitting one is chosen, until someone comes up with a better one. Now, at the moment, evolution is the best model for "where life comes from", and is likely to remain so for a long time. If you wish me to acknowledge creationism as a proposed model, then it definitely does not fit the observtions best. Hence this is not a case of faith, but an application of the scientific principle.

 

In fact, I'd be interested to see your rationale behind your beliefs. Why can't one species evolve into another?

[Jonwah]

First of all I apologise humbly for my misuse of the English language. I am truly ashamed and will shortly be whipping myself with a long stick untill I learn better.

 

Secondly of all, it is a case of faith, since currently your model of evolution isn't absolute, it is just a 'good enough for now' concept. You have to believe that it is fact until it is replaced by another more plausable model. Granted it is much less of a faith than creationism, since it's more accepted in the scientific world. But it still is a case of faith, the entire scientific principle is a case of faith and assumptions. You assume that for now, the evolutionary theory is correct and have faith that it is. I'm sorry maybe I'm missing something, but there seems to be some faith involved there.

Maybe I'm just more aware of what I believe in is a faith.

 

And you want me to sit here and document to you everything I've looked at that supports my religion? Go through every single thing I've read and looked at over the past few years? To you? So you can then shake it off as nonsense because it contradicts generally accepted athiestic views? If this debate calls for it I may do some time.

 

 

I keep saying I'm not arguing here but I keep finding myself fighting my corner, since I'm on my own...

[DCK]

And I considered billions of years obviously, I'm not stupid. But I also came to the conclusion that we're only a few thousand years old. In my opinion.

This is exactly what bothers me about these 'discussions'. Don't you see that this is not a matter of opinion? The existence of the biology is a fact, and its creation is also a fact. You're either right or wrong about that fact, there is nothing discussable about that.

 

It's quite ironic that you accept geological evidence as a prove that the Earth is billions of years old, and don't accept the fossil record and even geological proofs of evolution. The monocellulars > multicellulars > fish > amphibians > reptiles > mammals is proven as much as the Earth's age.

 

The only thing 'unproven' is the Darwinian evolution, which describes the way in which species evolve. There is no alternative for this theory based on pure logic however, and we'll probably find out it's true when humanity is around long enough to witness evolutionary processes. Evolution, in the sense of species developing into different species, is a proven fact and not subject to discussion.

[Jonwah]

See, it isn't a proven fact. It's still a theory. There is no absolute proof here. Why would we have a creationism vs evolution thread if it was already totaly decided?

There are many many theories as to the formation of fossil records etc.

 

 

 

"It's quite ironic that you accept geological evidence as a prove that the Earth is billions of years old, and don't accept the fossil record and even geological proofs of evolution"

 

What? I thought I said I thought the Earth is not billions of years old?

 

 

 

 

Annnnd, since you're all ganging up on me here, and I'm the only one actually supporting creationism at the moment. I'm slightly struggling. I don't know everything I'm afraid, I can't answer everything, espcially not straight away, and especially if your only reason for asking is to shoot me down again. Calm down.

[BlueStar]

But the thing about science is that its theories, including evolution, are constantly being tested and refined. There are other theories of evolution which have been largely discounted, such as the idea that, say, if an animal has to stretch its neck to get food it causes it's child to have a longer neck. Creationism has to stand up to no such tests because it is a belief based not on evidence but on faith. If scientific data came about with new evidence that suggested parts of evolutionary theory was incorrect, scientific views would change to accommodate it. Faith and religion has no such flexibility because it is, by it's very nature, dogmatic. It has to mould new discoveries around its existing belief structure.

 

Just out of interest Johnwah, do you believe that modern man, Neanderthal man, dinosaurs etc all lived together on the earth at the same time?

[Supergrunch]

Secondly of all, it is a case of faith, since currently your model of evolution isn't absolute, it is just a 'good enough for now' concept. You have to believe that it is fact until it is replaced by another more plausable model. Granted it is much less of a faith than creationism, since it's more accepted in the scientific world. But it still is a case of faith, the entire scientific principle is a case of faith and assumptions. You assume that for now, the evolutionary theory is correct and have faith that it is. I'm sorry maybe I'm missing something, but there seems to be some faith involved there.

Maybe I'm just more aware of what I believe in is a faith.

Yes, it is a model. Everything in science is a model. But models are not a case of faith, they are trying to describe the world based on evidence, whereas faith is not based on evidence. I also accept the fact that any model could be proven wrong. Someone faithful to their religion does not accept the fact that their religion might be rubbish.

And you want me to sit here and document to you everything I've looked at that supports my religion? Go through every single thing I've read and looked at over the past few years? To you? So you can then shake it off as nonsense because it contradicts generally accepted athiestic views? If this debate calls for it I may do some time.

You assume I an an atheist. That is a very big assumption, and if you had read the rest of the thread, you would know it isn't true.

See, it isn't a proven fact. It's still a theory. There is no absolute proof here. Why would we have a creationism vs evolution thread if it was already totaly decided?

We have creationism vs evolution arguments because of people like you.

[darksnowman]

Yeah, just cos you don't have all the answers doesnt mean that creation by God, isnt true.

 

Darwins the guy that evolutions attributed to isnt he? I've heard many a time that even he has said that it isnt true. Or maybe its the Big Bang.

 

Either way, nothings proven.

 

I much prefer to believe that the world and universe was created by the words of God, everything we see on earth and every star we see at night, meticulously placed and set spinning by Him. Its incredible.

 

I've watched many a program on the Big Bang, Evolution etc and I still believe that Genesis is the truth.

[Jonwah]

I do...

Though interestingly, I do also think that the flood, in the bible, came up from the earth and back down again. Causing huge shifts in geography and such, which is why a lot of fossils are muddled etc. And I have got a big amazingly interesting book explaining this theory, it isn't just some instantly dismissive crap.

 

And I'm very aware that Creationism isn't put to the same tests as scientific models. But that's because religion isn't a science. Science is the anti-religion.

Never will Science totaly agree with Religion on an issue, hence this entire discussion. That's something that will never change, along with our opinions.

I mean you can't be a creationist without believing in God surely?

[Rummy]

Obviously not enough

You did add billions of years to your 'calculations' right?...And that bacteria's just a load of cells...like us?, and they change and evolve themselves, so what's to stop them evolving into more complicated creatures?

 

I don't see why you put calculations in quote marks, nobody said 'calculations'.

 

This is exactly what bothers me about these 'discussions'. Don't you see that this is not a matter of opinion? The existence of the biology is a fact, and its creation is also a fact. You're either right or wrong about that fact, there is nothing discussable about that.

 

It's quite ironic that you accept geological evidence as a prove that the Earth is billions of years old, and don't accept the fossil record and even geological proofs of evolution. The monocellulars > multicellulars > fish > amphibians > reptiles > mammals is proven as much as the Earth's age.

 

The only thing 'unproven' is the Darwinian evolution, which describes the way in which species evolve. There is no alternative for this theory based on pure logic however, and we'll probably find out it's true when humanity is around long enough to witness evolutionary processes. Evolution, in the sense of species developing into different species, is a proven fact and not subject to discussion.

 

It's fact? Not a matter of opinion? It is absolutely 100% fact, not disprovable in any way? Do you honestly believe there is no room to be wrong here? That's what causes these problems in my view, people being too sure of stuff and not aware that they could actually be wrong. People like that tend to believe they need to force their views on everyone else and convert them to their way of thinking, but is there no way you can accept he thinks differently to you?

Also, can you please link me to some hard evidence of these facts and proofs you're claiming? I'd be quite interested to read them.

[Jonwah]

Yes, it is a model. Everything in science is a model. But models are not a case of faith, they are trying to describe the world based on evidence, whereas faith is not based on evidence. I also accept the fact that any model could be proven wrong. Someone faithful to their religion does not accept the fact that their religion might be rubbish.

 

You assume I an an atheist. That is a very big assumption, and if you had read the rest of the thread, you would know it isn't true.

 

We have creationism vs evolution arguments because of people like you.

 

I have been open minded in my discoveries, I have always looked at things with the possibility that christianity is wrong. Though I do have an actual relationship with God that I can feel, so there is bias, but I'm never ignorant enough to just dismiss anything anti religious.

 

I assumed that science is atheist, not you. 'generally accepted athiest views'.

 

I didn't start this argument, far from it.

[darksnowman]

I'm not Jonwah in disguise, but here I'll do a lengthy transcription for you nonetheless:

 

"According to evolutionists, the dinosaurs 'ruled the earth' for 140 million years, dying out about 65 million years ago. However, scientists do not dig up anything labelled with those ages. They only uncover dead dinosaurs (ie their bones, and their bones do not have labels attached telling how old they are. The idea of millions of years of evolution is just the evolutionists' story about the past. No scientis was there to see the dinosaurs live through thus supposed dinosaur age. In fact, there is no proof whatsoever that the world and its fossil layers are millions of years old. No scientist observed dinosaurs die. Scientists only find the bones in the here and now, because many of them are evolutionists, they try to fit the story of the dinosaurs into their view."

 

and...

 

"Although the Bible does not tell us exactly how long ago it was that God made the world and its creatures, we can make a good estimate of the date of creation by reading through the Bible and noting some interesting passages:

 

1) God made everything in six days. He did this by the way, to set a pattern for mankind, which has become our seven day week (as described in Exodus 20: 11). God worked for six days and rested for one, a model for us. Furthermore, Bible scholars will tell you that the Hebrew word for day used in Genesis chapter one, can only mean an ordinary day in this context.

 

2) We are told God created the first man and woman - Adam and Eve - on Day Six. Many facts about when their children and their children's children were born are given in Genesis. These genealogies are recorded throughout the Old Testament, up until the time of Christ. They certainly were not chronologies lasting millions of years.

 

 

As you add up all the dates, and accepting that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to earth almost 2000 years ago, we come to the conclusion that the creation of the earth and animals (including the dinosaurs) occurred only thousands of years ago (perhaps only six thousand years!), not millions of years."

 

 

Phew, now, pick it to shreds old chums!

[Supergrunch]

I have been open minded in my discoveries, I have always looked at things with the possibility that christianity is wrong. Though I do have an actual relationship with God that I can feel, so there is bias, but I'm never ignorant enough to just dismiss anything anti religious.

 

I assumed that science is atheist, not you. 'generally accepted athiest views'.

 

I didn't start this argument, far from it.

Science is not atheist, although many scientists are atheists. As you say, to "believe" in creationism, one must be religious. One can "believe" in evolution whether you are religious or not. Science merely tries to explain the universe... I don't see how that is the antithesis of religion.

 

And I wasn't trying to claim you started the argument. My point was that as long as there are people who believe in creationism (such as yourself), those who do not (such as myself) will argue against them.

 

"According to evolutionists, the dinosaurs 'ruled the earth' for 140 million years, dying out about 65 million years ago. However, scientists do not dig up anything labelled with those ages. They only uncover dead dinosaurs (ie their bones, and their bones do not have labels attached telling how old they are. The idea of millions of years of evolution is just the evolutionists' story about the past. No scientis was there to see the dinosaurs live through thus supposed dinosaur age. In fact, there is no proof whatsoever that the world and its fossil layers are millions of years old. No scientist observed dinosaurs die. Scientists only find the bones in the here and now, because many of them are evolutionists, they try to fit the story of the dinosaurs into their view."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

[BlueStar]

Oh god, not copy-pastes from answeringgenisis.org, I thought we'd never get to this point.

[Jonwah]

"WHERE ARE YOUR FACTS YOU HORRIBLE RELIGIOUS PERSON etc etc"

 

I think you are me in disguise, you just don't know it :P

[BlueStar]

You think dinosaurs might be mentioned in the bible, the fact that there were giganitc lizard monsters roaming around with man seems a pretty major omission to me. Maybe they were just so used to them they forgot to mention it. Of course the cynic might think that's because men at the time they were writing the bible didn't know about dinosaurs, which also explains the stuff about the sun going around the earth. Of course if God was dictating to them, he would have known that was incorrect from his lofty vantage point...

[Jonwah]

I'm sorry, can carbondating only accurately measure 60,000 years??

Well that'd explain how we discovered how ever many billion years old the universe is no?