creationism vs evolution.

[Ginganinja]

I know this is a touchy subject but I wanted to know what you all thought about it. personally I believe in evolution.

please do not try to offend anyone, keep in mind both sides are only a theory and neither one has been definitively proven as fact

[Gamma Male]

please do not try to offend anyone, keep in mind both sides are only a theory and neither one has been definitively proven as fact

Creationism is a theory in the common sense of the word.

Evolution is a theory in the scientific meaning of the word.

Huge difference. At this point, not believing in evolution is like not believing in the theory of relativity or gravity. Nothing can ever be proven 100%, but the evidence for evolution is overwhelming and it has, for all intents and purposes, been practically proven.

You can have your own opinions, not your own facts. Evolution is fact. Creationism is opinion. It's that simple.

[Camazotz]

Creationism is a theory in the common sense of the word.

Evolution is a theory in the scientific meaning of the word.

Huge difference. At this point, not believing in evolution is like not believing in the theory of relativity or gravity. Nothing can ever be proven 100%, but the evidence for evolution is overwhelming and it has, for all intents and purposes, been practically proven.

You can have your own opinions, not your own facts. Evolution is fact. Creationism is opinion. It's that simple.

This. Besides, one does not necessarily contradict the other; they argue unrelated things.

[JamesSuperBoy]

I think so - but some will always debate.

[Harry Smith]

As usual Simpsons sums it up for me

WbPR-S01yhA

[Jean Poutine]

How many times are we going to see this thread?

[Gamma Male]

How many times are we going to see this thread?

It's persistent alright. :lol:

[TheN3rdyOutcast]

Personally, I find it easier to believe in evolution rather than the theory that some omnipotent being came out of nowhere and handcrafted trillions of aracheabacteria, eubacteria, protists, fungi, plants and animals all at once.

[green white]

I believe both. God creat old human like homo erectus. But they are destroyer, so God change them with modern human.
It's like story but I believe it

[Apollo.]

My opinion ones an old guy with a magic wand and the other is the scientific theory. Like do you believe in Harry Potter? If not then that should give you your answer.

[Miserabilia]

neither one has been definitively proven as fact

Actualy yes evolution is a proven fact. Get over it people. It's proven it's happening we can witness and observe it now.
The only thing we DON'T have as proven fact is abiogenesis and evolution from molecule to man.
Evolution itself is a proven fact, end of story.

[flappybird]

I believe both. God creat old human like homo erectus. But they are destroyer, so God change them with modern human.
It's like story but I believe it

Why do you believe it, may I ask?

[TheGuest]

I believe that however it happened, God was the mastermind.

[green white]

Because I read some book.
Cause i believe the creationism because my religion. I think my religion it's true, because my religion have many opinions about universe, and now some opinons can proof by science.

[anrigirl]

I believe in a mix of both

[tovaris]

Its not realy a touchy subject, because creaionism realy has not got enouth folowers for them to be alowed to be touvhy.

[Gamma Male]

Its not realy a touchy subject, because creaionism realy has not got enouth folowers for them to be alowed to be touvhy.

Are you kidding? Creationism has lots of followers. Way too many. Maybe it's just the state I live in, but there are more people who believe in staunch creationism here than in evolution.

[Babs]

I believe in evolution because of the overwhelming evidence and because creationism makes no logical sense to me.

[Korashk]

Are you kidding? Creationism has lots of followers. Way too many. Maybe it's just the state I live in, but there are more people who believe in staunch creationism here than in evolution.
Creationism is only really a thing in America. Very few places in the first world have to deal with the issue because for them it simply isn't an issue. Just a few crazy people.

[phuckphace]

believing in Creationism doesn't make someone "crazy." or at least, no crazier than believing in, say, invisible hand free market voodoo magic.

[Korashk]

believing in Creationism doesn't make someone "crazy." or at least, no crazier than believing in, say, invisible hand free market voodoo magic.
Denying reality is markedly more irrational than subscribing to an economic model. Especially when economics isn't a hard science, and it's arguably not even a science.

[TheGuest]

If God didnt create this world, then what is the meaning of life? How is human DNA so intricately designed? Do you really think this is all just coincidence?

[Gamma Male]

If God didnt create this world, then what is the meaning of life?
There is no inherent meaning, because meaning implies intent and there was no intent behind life coming into existence. That said, we've evolved(mentally) to a point where we should be able to choose our own meaning and decide for ourselves what we want our lives to be about. Personally, I feel that in some way or another the meaning most people subscribe to is to simply try very hard to maximise the amount of positive emotions they feel and minimize the amount of negative emotions. Although, what constitutes and what causes "negative" and "positive" emotions is different for everyone, which is why we should each try to find our own path.
How is human DNA so intricately designed?
Billions of years of evolution will do that.
Do you really think this is all just coincidence?

I don't think there was any conscience intent behind the coming into existence of human beings, if that's what you mean. I don't know if "coincidence" is the right word.

[TheGuest]

Billions of years of evolution will do that.
A well known scientists(i forgot the name)estimated that there is less than 1 chance in 10^40,000power that life could have originated by random trials.
Only DNA is known to produce DNA. No chemical interaction of molecules has even come close to producing this extremely complex code which is so essential to all known life.

Edit - Now I remember who the scientist was, it was Sir Fred Hoyle

[Camazotz]

A well known scientists(i forgot the name)estimated that there is less than 1 chance in 10^40,000power that life could have originated by random trials.
Only DNA is known to produce DNA. No chemical interaction of molecules has even come close to producing this extremely complex code which is so essential to all known life.

Edit - Now I remember who the scientist was, it was Sir Fred Hoyle

Those calculations may be correct if life on Earth actually started on Earth. Panspermia is the concept that life forms were on meteorites that fell into Earth's oceans. Those calculations are null because most scientists agree that panspermia was the catalyst for life on Earth.

[Vlerchan]

Those calculations are null because most scientists agree that panspermia was the catalyst for life on Earth.
I'm going to want a source for this.

---

Improbable =/= Impossible.

And considering the timespan we are talking here the improbable doesn't remain hugely improbable long.

[Gamma Male]

A well known scientists(i forgot the name)estimated that there is less than 1 chance in 10^40,000power that life could have originated by random trials.
Only DNA is known to produce DNA. No chemical interaction of molecules has even come close to producing this extremely complex code which is so essential to all known life.

Edit - Now I remember who the scientist was, it was Sir Fred Hoyle

http://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance

That was a long time ago, and since then we've made advances in science which have allowed us to create different hypothesis for how life began, such as the one explained in the article which is extremely plausible.

[Lovelife090994]

Creationism is only really a thing in America. Very few places in the first world have to deal with the issue because for them it simply isn't an issue. Just a few crazy people.

No, it exists worldwide but America is the only place that demeans people for it. A belief is not enough to make someone crazy. It takes crazy to know crazy.

[Vlerchan]

No, it exists worldwide but America is the only place that demeans people for it.
No, it's not.

If anything, America is one of the most accepting places for creationist nonesense.

[Camazotz]

I'm going to want a source for this.

---

Improbable =/= Impossible.

And considering the timespan we are talking here the improbable doesn't remain hugely improbable long.

You're right (http://www.livescience.com/1804-greatest-mysteries-life-arise-earth.html), I assumed it was a well accepted hypothesis, but it's not widely accepted as I previously claimed. It is certainly accepted, but not by a majority of the scientific field.

[Apollo.]

Well ones a guy in a cloud waving a magic wand and making a planet and is only backed up by a book that sounds like whoever wrote it was on acid, the other has some decent scientific evidence behind it. I'll say no more than that.

[TheGuest]

Well ones a guy in a cloud waving a magic wand and making a planet and is only backed up by a book that sounds like whoever wrote it was on acid, the other has some decent scientific evidence behind it. I'll say no more than that.

There would be no reason to live if God just let everything be easy to understand.
God doesnt magically make things happen, or else everyone would know that he is real and they would never worry-life would be too easy. If everyone in the world was a faithful Christian and worshipped God, life on earth would be meaningless. Basically everyone would eventually go to heaven since there would be no evil in the world.

[Karagor]

There would be no reason to live if God just let everything be easy to understand.

Love, money, good food, family, your children, or even as simple as "living is interesting."


God doesnt magically make things happen, or else everyone would know that he is real and they would never worry-life would be too easy.

How do you know that though? Life wasn't easy in the old testement, where he repeatedly showed himself (like in burning bushes).

If everyone in the world was a faithful Christian and worshipped God, life on earth would be meaningless. Basically everyone would eventually go to heaven since there would be no evil in the world.

Surely "Everyone going to heaven" and there being "No evil in the world" are both good things? I for one would prefer everyone to be happy, wouldn't you?

[Karagor]

I believe that however it happened, God was the mastermind.

This thinking bugs me. You basically just said: "Even if you have overwhelming evidence that my religion is wrong, it's all God's plan to pretend to not exist."

[TheGuest]

This thinking bugs me. You basically just said: "Even if you have overwhelming evidence that my religion is wrong, it's all God's plan to pretend to not exist."

First of all, there is absolutely no way that you can disprove Christianity with science.(Go ahead and try) Secondly, God is not pretending not to exist. He wants us to be faithful, and then he will guide us. Like a king for instance, if you are loyal to the king, he will protect you with his knights.

[CharlieHorse]

believing in Creationism doesn't make someone "crazy." or at least, no crazier than believing in, say, invisible hand free market voodoo magic.

if i said that i believe in magic and unicorns and that everyone is a robot, would that be considered crazy?

[xandyx]

I guess I believe in God and that he created us but through science and stuff not just popping us into existence. Is that a good compromise?

[CharlieHorse]

I guess I believe in God and that he created us but through science and stuff not just popping us into existence. Is that a good compromise?

If you believe that, then sure.

Personally, I think that's even worse to make a middle ground, where it can be interpreted as incorrect from either side.

[Babs]

First of all, there is absolutely no way that you can disprove Christianity with science.(Go ahead and try) Secondly, God is not pretending not to exist. He wants us to be faithful, and then he will guide us. Like a king for instance, if you are loyal to the king, he will protect you with his knights.

While there might not be solid proof, but there is a lot more evidence in favor of evolution and the big bang than there ever has been and ever will be for creationism.

[Karagor]

First of all, there is absolutely no way that you can disprove Christianity with science.(Go ahead and try) Secondly, God is not pretending not to exist. He wants us to be faithful, and then he will guide us. Like a king for instance, if you are loyal to the king, he will protect you with his knights.

The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim. The best way to think of it, is to think you're describing to someone who has never heard of God before. You claim he does all this, but if I've never seen any evidence, why should I believe it? Where is your evidence that God does anything? Putting aside his existence for a moment.

[TheGuest]

The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim. The best way to think of it, is to think you're describing to someone who has never heard of God before. You claim he does all this, but if I've never seen any evidence, why should I believe it? Where is your evidence that God does anything? Putting aside his existence for a moment.

I could go into a big explanation, but ill try to summarize it. The most reliable of evidence would be all the miracles Jesus performed. His resurrection in particular. After he was crucified, his body was put in a tomb and a large boulder was put in front of it. There was also a guard keeping an eye on the tomb. How do you suppose his body dissappeared? His body was never found. During his crucifixion, Jesus's followers were a bit reluctant that Jesus was the real deal. After his resurrection, their faith came back 10x more powerful. They risked their lives preaching his word, many died. There is evidence for Jesus's miracles in historical documents (other than the bible) For instance,

Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate-
** *"Jesus has now been honored for about three hundred years; having done nothing throughout his lifetime that was worthy of fame, unless anyone thinks it a very great work to heal the lame and the blind and to cast out demons in the towns of Bethsaida and Bethany."


The early Jewish Rabbis of the first century did not deny that Jesus performed miracles, but they tried to attribute them to acts of sorcery. *
"During the time of Passover they executed Jesus (of Nazareth). An announcement was made for forty days before this saying (Jesus of Nazareth) will be stoned in that he has practiced sorcery and deceived and led Israel astray. Let everyone who knows contrary, come and plead for his defense. But they found nothing in his defense and crucified him"

[Gamma Male]

I could go into a big explanation, but ill try to summarize it. The most reliable of evidence would be all the miracles Jesus performed. His resurrection in particular. After he was crucified, his body was put in a tomb and a large boulder was put in front of it. There was also a guard keeping an eye on the tomb. How do you suppose his body dissappeared? His body was never found. During his crucifixion, Jesus's followers were a bit reluctant that Jesus was the real deal. After his resurrection, their faith came back 10x more powerful. They risked their lives preaching his word, many died. There is evidence for Jesus's miracles in historical documents (other than the bible) For instance,

Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate-
** *"Jesus has now been honored for about three hundred years; having done nothing throughout his lifetime that was worthy of fame, unless anyone thinks it a very great work to heal the lame and the blind and to cast out demons in the towns of Bethsaida and Bethany."


The early Jewish Rabbis of the first century did not deny that Jesus performed miracles, but they tried to attribute them to acts of sorcery. *
"During the time of Passover they executed Jesus (of Nazareth). An announcement was made for forty days before this saying (Jesus of Nazareth) will be stoned in that he has practiced sorcery and deceived and led Israel astray. Let everyone who knows contrary, come and plead for his defense. But they found nothing in his defense and crucified him"

None of this proves that God exists or that Christianity is valid. At best, all it shows is that 2000 years ago someone named Jesus existed in the middle east and amassed a small following by preaching.

[Karagor]

There is evidence for Jesus's miracles in historical documents (other than the bible) For instance,

Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate-
** *"Jesus has now been honored for about three hundred years; having done nothing throughout his lifetime that was worthy of fame, unless anyone thinks it a very great work to heal the lame and the blind and to cast out demons in the towns of Bethsaida and Bethany."

Can you link a peer reviewed source of this quote? I googled it and only came up with a single Christian website that had it on there, and that hadn't given a single reliable source either, only other Christian's musings. There is no mention of this quote, or him ever referencing Jesus, on Wikipedia. Make of that as you will.

Ignoring the source for a moment though, I am not arguing the existance of Jesus, and so all you've done is shown me evidence that some people back then believed he had magical powers...

I don't want you to point to history or your bible for proof. I want actual proof. Mathematics, or science. Something irrefutable. This is because an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. (And God existing is definitely an extraordinary claim.)


The early Jewish Rabbis of the first century did not deny that Jesus performed miracles, but they tried to attribute them to acts of sorcery. *
"During the time of Passover they executed Jesus (of Nazareth). An announcement was made for forty days before this saying (Jesus of Nazareth) will be stoned in that he has practiced sorcery and deceived and led Israel astray. Let everyone who knows contrary, come and plead for his defense. But they found nothing in his defense and crucified him"

Even if this is accurate, it is far more likely that the Rabbis didn't want Jesus around and so made things up about him. However, I doubt any of this quote actually happened. But if it did, as I said, it is evidence for nothing.

[Vlerchan]

Julian (Latin: Flavius Claudius Julianus Augustus, 331/332– 26 June 363), also known as Julian the Apostate, as well as Julian the Philosopher, was Roman Emperor from 361 to 363 and a noted philosopher and Greek writer.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_(emperor)
Note the bolded.

I've no idea how one might consider the words of an individual who lived generations after Jesus to be (solid) evidence that Jesus even existed.

---

His body was never found.
This is because it is unlikely he was ever buried or preserved (if he existed).

It was usual practice for individuals to be left up on the cross after death as a message to others: I can't see an exception being made for Jesus, so his body was probably eaten by birds.

[TheGuest]

Can you link a peer reviewed source of this quote? I googled it and only came up with a single Christian website that had it on there, and that hadn't given a single reliable source either, only other Christian's musings. There is no mention of this quote, or him ever referencing Jesus, on Wikipedia. Make of that as you will.

Ignoring the source for a moment though, I am not arguing the existance of Jesus, and so all you've done is shown me evidence that some people back then believed he had magical powers...

I don't want you to point to history or your bible for proof. I want actual proof. Mathematics, or science. Something irrefutable. This is because an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. (And God existing is definitely an extraordinary claim.)




Even if this is accurate, it is far more likely that the Rabbis didn't want Jesus around and so made things up about him. However, I doubt any of this quote actually happened. But if it did, as I said, it is evidence for nothing.

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

"Yet Jesus, who won over the least worthy of you, has been known by name for but little more than three hundred years: and during his lifetime he accomplished nothing worth hearing of, unless anyone thinks that to heal crooked and blind men and to exorcise those who were possessed by evil demons in the villages of Bethsaida and Bethany can be classed as a mighty achievement."
^So obviously it was well known that Jesus performed miracles in Bethsaida and Bethany.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/julian_apostate_galileans_1_text.htm
Julian the Apostate was a Roman Emperor, greek writer and noted philosopher.

Babylonian Talmud* (late first or second century AD)* Babylonian Sanhedrin43a-b* “On the eve of the Passover they hanged Jesus[Yeshu] and the herald went before him for forty days saying Jesus[Yeshu] is going forth to be stoned in that he hate practiced sorcery and beguiled and led astray Israel** Here Jesus is accused of sorcery, in obvious parallel with the charge leveled in Matthew 12:22-23.* The writer of the Talmud does not agree that Jesus worked bona fide miracles, but he reports that he did things which, to the enemy of Jesus could only be written off as sorcery.*** In Babylonian Sanhedrin107b* it is claimed that Jesus practiced magic. In* tHul2:22-23* it is reported that healings were done in the name of Jesus.* So we have indirect confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus and of his working of public miracles-only charging that the miracles were worked by Satan, not God.

There, I've provided a reference. You asked for it, so keep an open mind

My evidence for God is Jesus. Now if you choose not to consider that then you must be the ones who believe in wizards.

[Karagor]

"Yet Jesus, who won over the least worthy of you, has been known by name for but little more than three hundred years: and during his lifetime he accomplished nothing worth hearing of, unless anyone thinks that to heal crooked and blind men and to exorcise those who were possessed by evil demons in the villages of Bethsaida and Bethany can be classed as a mighty achievement."
^So obviously it was well known that Jesus performed miracles in Bethsaida and Bethany.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/julian_apostate_galileans_1_text.htm
Julian the Apostate was a Roman Emperor, greek writer and noted philosopher.

Babylonian Talmud* (late first or second century AD)* Babylonian Sanhedrin43a-b* “On the eve of the Passover they hanged Jesus[Yeshu] and the herald went before him for forty days saying Jesus[Yeshu] is going forth to be stoned in that he hate practiced sorcery and beguiled and led astray Israel** Here Jesus is accused of sorcery, in obvious parallel with the charge leveled in Matthew 12:22-23.* The writer of the Talmud does not agree that Jesus worked bona fide miracles, but he reports that he did things which, to the enemy of Jesus could only be written off as sorcery.*** In Babylonian Sanhedrin107b* it is claimed that Jesus practiced magic. In* tHul2:22-23* it is reported that healings were done in the name of Jesus.* So we have indirect confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus and of his working of public miracles-only charging that the miracles were worked by Satan, not God.

There, I've provided a reference. You asked for it, so keep an open mind

My evidence for God is Jesus. Now if you choose not to consider that then you must be the ones who believe in wizards.

You've used the same guy again though... Just from a different website. This is basically like me finding the same book in two different stores and saying "Look, it's in two books, therefore it's true."

This man lived 350+ years after Jesus died. By this time, Peter has long died, the man responsible for the creation of Christianity. So the exaggerations have been going on for 350+ years.

The fact is, what you're claiming is something huge. Therefore I require huge evidence to prove it. Not one cherry picked quote from a guy who lived ~1700 years ago, and ~350 years after Jesus. Because I can do that to..

"But when he became man what benefits did he confer on his own kinsfolk? Nay, the Galilaeans answer, they refused to hearken unto Jesus. What? How was it then that this hardhearted 73 and stubborn-necked people hearkened unto Moses; but Jesus, who commanded the spirits 74 and walked on the sea, and drove out demons, and as you yourselves assert made the heavens and the earth,----for no one of his disciples ventured to say this concerning him, save only John, and he did not say it clearly or distinctly; still let us at any rate admit that he said it----could not this Jesus change the dispositions of his own friends and kinsfolk to the end that he might save them?"

Sounds to me like he's mocking the idea of Jesus doing these things, more than actually asserting them as fact.

[TheGuest]

You've used the same guy again though... Just from a different website. This is basically like me finding the same book in two different stores and saying "Look, it's in two books, therefore it's true."

This man lived 350+ years after Jesus died. By this time, Peter has long died, the man responsible for the creation of Christianity. So the exaggerations have been going on for 350+ years.

The fact is, what you're claiming is something huge. Therefore I require huge evidence to prove it. Not one cherry picked quote from a guy who lived ~1700 years ago, and ~350 years after Jesus. Because I can do that to..



Sounds to me like he's mocking the idea of Jesus doing these things, more than actually asserting them as fact.

Please read the first link, a college professor can explain it much better than I can

[Karagor]

Please read the first link, a college professor can explain it much better than I can
Here is someone else to debunk the guy who said it better than you could, if that's what we're doing. (http://infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/)

[TheGuest]

Here is someone else to debunk the guy who said it better than you could, if that's what we're doing. (http://infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/)

Since its extremely long, im not willing to read the whole article, but if you want, you can quote a specific part that is most tangible. By the way, nothing can change my religion. Im a Christian because of the things that have happened to me personally, not just proof from the bible and such. I've seen enough in my life, that if I were to deny Jesus, I may as well deny the fact that i'm alive.

[Karagor]

Since its extremely long, im not willing to read the whole article, but if you want, you can quote a specific part that is most tangible. By the way, nothing can change my religion. Im a Christian because of the things that have happened to me personally, not just proof from the bible and such. I've seen enough in my life, that if I were to deny Jesus, I may as well deny the fact that i'm alive.

If you're not going to read the article, I'll just assert that your "proof" of Jesus doing any miracles is debunked. I don't see why I should read your articles if you wont read the counter argument.

[TheGuest]

If you're not going to read the article, I'll just assert that your "proof" of Jesus doing any miracles is debunked. I don't see why I should read your articles if you wont read the counter argument.

That article is basically a book written to disprove my religion. Im not going to waste my time reading 12 chapters of people trying to say God is not real(even though I know he is). Like I said, nothing can change my religion. I have a relationship with Christ, thats all I need for proof.

[Karagor]

That article is basically a book written to disprove my religion. Im not going to waste my time reading 12 chapters of people trying to say God is not real(even though I know he is). Like I said, nothing can change my religion. I have a relationship with Christ, thats all I need for proof.

Then why should anyone else waste time with a book written to prove your bible is real? You just argued my point for me...

Regarding you not wanting to change your mind, that's up to you, but maybe someone else reading our encounter will see exactly why putting your faith in something that has no evidence is, in my opinion at least, foolish.

I hope you enjoy your relationship, and I hope you can appreciate that not everyone wishes to share in that relationship.

All the best.

[TheGuest]

Then why should anyone else waste time with a book written to prove your bible is real? You just argued my point for me...

Regarding you not wanting to change your mind, that's up to you, but maybe someone else reading our encounter will see exactly why putting your faith in something that has no evidence is, in my opinion at least, foolish.

I hope you enjoy your relationship, and I hope you can appreciate that not everyone wishes to share in that relationship.

All the best.

Thank you, and if you ever decide to change your mind, remember this quote

Religion~ Do good things, and be accepted.

Jesus~ You've already been accepted! Come, and follow me.

[Cpt_Cutter]

The most reliable of evidence would be all the miracles Jesus performed. His resurrection in particular.

I'm not trying to insult any religion, but when your main source of proof is something written Give or take 2000 years ago that mentions that things happened, you really need to look for better proof. Following this logic, Aeneas was really the founder of the roman people and Troy actually took in the giant wooden horse.

[TheGuest]

I'm not trying to insult any religion, but when your main source of proof is something written Give or take 2000 years ago that mentions that things happened, you really need to look for better proof. Following this logic, Aeneas was really the founder of the roman people and Troy actually took in the giant wooden horse.

Christianity is a doctrine that has been taught for thousands of years. God only sent a certain amount of prophets and then finally Jesus Christ(the Son of God). That's when the New Testament was written. That was the most recent big event. I assume the best proof must be the information taken during the event whether or not it was a long time ago. The bible was collected during/around that time and its all just passed on to us.
Just because its old doesnt mean its wrong. Its just like any other documents historians may find.

[Ethe14]

I do believe in creationism BUT, as much as I'd like to think creationism was the sole creator of us I think that evolution played a role. As in god created the first human beings set the foundation and evolutionism then took over.

[Karagor]

I do believe in creationism BUT, as much as I'd like to think creationism was the sole creator of us I think that evolution played a role. As in god created the first human beings set the foundation and evolutionism then took over.

The problem with this is that you have to pinpoint exactly when "human beings" became "human beings.

This text is quite effective at demonstrating how evolution works. (http://i.imgur.com/xWpvw.jpg)

[Babs]

That article is basically a book written to disprove my religion. Im not going to waste my time reading 12 chapters of people trying to say God is not real(even though I know he is). Like I said, nothing can change my religion. I have a relationship with Christ, thats all I need for proof.

You have every right to believe in your religion, but why not even take a look at things with opposing views? I understand it can be annoying and such but when you avoid all contact with anything that doesn't line up with all of your views, when you don't contemplate or attempt to understand the other side, even if it's just knowledge for entertainment's sake, can you really be sure of everything? I'm no longer a Christian but when I was, I at least made an attempt to understand other people's point of views when talking about religion (things such as agnosticism, atheism, deism, and things like Wicca, etc.) to understand where other people are coming from instead of refusing to see the other point of view. That doesn't necessarily mean you have to drop Christianity or anything, nor do I mean you should read a 12 chapter book against your beliefs, but a little effort to understand the other point of view gives your debate credibility, rather than utter refusal to glance at anything different.
Like I said, do your own thing, this is just a suggestion.

[TheGuest]

You have every right to believe in your religion, but why not even take a look at things with opposing views? I understand it can be annoying and such but when you avoid all contact with anything that doesn't line up with all of your views, when you don't contemplate or attempt to understand the other side, even if it's just knowledge for entertainment's sake, can you really be sure of everything? I'm no longer a Christian but when I was, I at least made an attempt to understand other people's point of views when talking about religion (things such as agnosticism, atheism, deism, and things like Wicca, etc.) to understand where other people are coming from instead of refusing to see the other point of view. That doesn't necessarily mean you have to drop Christianity or anything, nor do I mean you should read a 12 chapter book against your beliefs, but a little effort to understand the other point of view gives your debate credibility, rather than utter refusal to glance at anything different.
Like I said, do your own thing, this is just a suggestion.

I respect their beliefs, or lack of belief, rather. But ive been through enough and experienced enough in my life that if I were to neglect God, I may as well neglect my own life. Lets just say, if Christians prayed/worshipped and didnt feel that God was helping them throughout their life, i assume they would figure its not real, and would stop being a Christian. Ive had some unexplainable and unbelievable things happen in my life(terrible things). You wouldnt even believe me so im not gonna explain what happened. Anyway, I prayed and asked for guidance and help. Things started to get better. My life started to piece itself back together. There are just so many miracles, yet subtle, that happen every day. I just dont care to waste my time reading up on theories trying to prove my religion false because I know God is real. You dont have to believe in God, but I do because of my own life experiences.

[Babs]

I respect their beliefs, or lack of belief, rather. But ive been through enough and experienced enough in my life that if I were to neglect God, I may as well neglect my own life. Lets just say, if Christians prayed/worshipped and didnt feel that God was helping them throughout their life, i assume they would figure its not real, and would stop being a Christian. Ive had some unexplainable and unbelievable things happen in my life(terrible things). You wouldnt even believe me so im not gonna explain what happened. Anyway, I prayed and asked for guidance and help. Things started to get better. My life started to piece itself back together. There are just so many miracles, yet subtle, that happen every day. I just dont care to waste my time reading up on theories trying to prove my religion false because I know God is real. You dont have to believe in God, but I do because of my own life experiences.

Whoa there - I never said neglect God. I said make an attempt to understand the other point of view during a debate.

[Stronk Serb]

No, it exists worldwide but America is the only place that demeans people for it. A belief is not enough to make someone crazy. It takes crazy to know crazy.

Nah, even my hardcore-Orthodox relatives think it's evolution. And my friends. The Serbian Orthodox Church did not take a stance on this one. It's not like the Catholic church which puts it's nose everywhere.

[Lovelife090994]

Nah, even my hardcore-Orthodox relatives think it's evolution. And my friends. The Serbian Orthodox Church did not take a stance on this one. It's not like the Catholic church which puts it's nose everywhere.

That was a little facetious. Not every Catholic puts its nose everywhere. Catholics technically were the first Christian Church.

[Stronk Serb]

That was a little facetious. Not every Catholic puts its nose everywhere. Catholics technically were the first Christian Church.


The Catholic and Orthodox churches were united since their founding untill 1054. That's when they split up and were officially known as Catholic and Orthodox. Before, the pope was a mere bishop of Rome. The point is, America is a country with a larger percent of creationists, compared to other countries. Also I meant it as in the Catholic Church's higher hierarchy puts it's nose everywhere.

[Lovelife090994]

The Catholic and Orthodox churches were united since their founding untill 1054. That's when they split up and were officially known as Catholic and Orthodox. Before, the pope was a mere bishop of Rome. The point is, America is a country with a larger percent of creationists, compared to other countries. Also I meant it as in the Catholic Church's higher hierarchy puts it's nose everywhere.

What's wrong with that? Do you really want to focus on the past and the negative. Why not look at the good done too?

[Stronk Serb]

What's wrong with that? Do you really want to focus on the past and the negative. Why not look at the good done too?

It's not negative. I was just correcting you when you said the Catholic Church is the first church. Well, clergy going around and telling the HIV-infected in Africa that they shouldn't use condoms or that contraceptions shouldn't be used... That's a lot of outting their noses into places they don't belong. I think the negative outweights the good done.

[Lovelife090994]

It's not negative. I was just correcting you when you said the Catholic Church is the first church. Well, clergy going around and telling the HIV-infected in Africa that they shouldn't use condoms or that contraceptions shouldn't be used... That's a lot of outting their noses into places they don't belong. I think the negative outweights the good done.

I think you are wrong and hurt. I feel your pain. You blame the whole church for a few who did bad acts in its name. The Catholic Church still seeks to help people. All Christians are supposed to help people. But we are human. We make mistakes, we aren't perfect. Hate those who did evil, not everyone. And you know Catholics have a lot of dirt put on them no matter what they do. I don't want to argue. Good night.

[Stronk Serb]

I think you are wrong and hurt. I feel your pain. You blame the whole church for a few who did bad acts in its name. The Catholic Church still seeks to help people. All Christians are supposed to help people. But we are human. We make mistakes, we aren't perfect. Hate those who did evil, not everyone. And you know Catholics have a lot of dirt put on them no matter what they do. I don't want to argue. Good night.

I would go on and on and on about the details, but if you don't want to argue, good morning. It's 10 in the morning here.

[Hyper]

How many times are we going to see this thread?

As many times people are hit over the head with a stupidity stick.

Taking creationism as literally as going the whole ''the earth is only 5k years old'' distance is just retarded there is 0 point in arguing or trying to discuss anything (in regards to evolution) with people who believe that.

[BigStaats]

I'm an agnostic theist, but I choose to believe both. For me, they both co-exist or something along those lines.

[Miserabilia]

I'm an agnostic theist, but I choose to believe both. For me, they both co-exist or something along those lines.

What co-exists along the same lines?
:what:
What specific type of creationism do you beleive in? Because creationism usualy refers to a young earth, etc.

[conner74]

creationism for me

[BigStaats]

What co-exists along the same lines?
:what:
What specific type of creationism do you beleive in? Because creationism usualy refers to a young earth, etc.

"Along those lines", means something similar to what is said. I only added it because I didn't know if I worded my sentence correctly. As for your last question, I'm a Christian. :metal:

[Typhlosion]

Creationism is incompatible with our current society full of different religions and also with an increasing non-theistic point of view. To enforce a single religion is absurd, to teach all is maniacal (as well as easily biased). We should always offer the best objective explanation today to the developing minds.

However, I'm not here to debate if cultist teachings/traditions/rituals should/shouldn't teach/incorporate evolution. Just the state that is an absolute must.

[Karagor]

However, I'm not here to debate if cultist teachings/traditions/rituals should/shouldn't teach/incorporate evolution. Just the state that is an absolute must.

If a religion/cult (The same thing in my books) wants to last past 2100, then it has to encorporate evolution into it's belief system. That's about 3 generations from now. I called it here first ;)#

That's the year 2100, not 9pm... Even I'm not that optimistic xD

[Miserabilia]

"Along those lines", means something similar to what is said. I only added it because I didn't know if I worded my sentence correctly. As for your last question, I'm a Christian. :metal:

That doesn't really answer my question. When you say you beleive in creationism, what exactly is it you beleive in? And how is it compatible with evolution?

[BigStaats]

As I said in my earlier post, I'm a Christian. However, I don't think that God made the Earth in six days. I believe in The Gap Theory - This says that there was a gap of thousands, or millions, of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. And finally, Theistic Evolution- This theory posits that God created the basics, got the ball rolling, and stepped back to let the evolutionary process work on its own. I also think that he/she/it did it through natural-processes, not voodoo magic.

[Karagor]

As I said in my earlier post, I'm a Christian. However, I don't think that God made the Earth in six days. I believe in The Gap Theory - This says that there was a gap of thousands, or millions, of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. And finally, Theistic Evolution- This theory posits that God created the basics, got the ball rolling, and stepped back to let the evolutionary process work on its own. I also think that he/she/it did it through natural-processes, not voodoo magic.

Using this view of the world, how do you explain contradictions within the bible? Or the misconceptions within the bible? If you don't know what I mean, you can google the term and there are thousands to go through... I don't want you to argue against each one, just a general viewpoint of how you 'brush them off'.

[tovaris]

Are you kidding? Creationism has lots of followers. Way too many. Maybe it's just the state I live in, but there are more people who believe in staunch creationism here than in evolution.
thats Land of the "free" for you.

[darkangel91]

There is no debate or controversy as far as I'm concerned. The scientific community is pretty much unanimous in that the theory of evolution by natural selection is correct. Creationists have never once been able to muster any proof for their little hypothesis.

[Ethe14]

As always I do believe in creationism but the above post about the gap theory is a very interesting one. I'm sure evolution did take part but I'm sure god placed us here on the earth and got things started. Do I thnk earth was created by god? No. But I do believe that god set us down here and started making landscapes and all.

[CosmicNoodle]

Creationism is about as logical as shooting yourself in the face whilst trying to tie your show laces.

That about sums up my opinion

[Miserabilia]

As always I do believe in creationism but the above post about the gap theory is a very interesting one. I'm sure evolution did take part but I'm sure god placed us here on the earth and got things started. Do I thnk earth was created by god? No. But I do believe that god set us down here and started making landscapes and all.

I'm sorry that sounds pretty much erm contradictory/desultory, you don't think god created the eart, but you think he started making landscapes? Like, the core was already there and the earth's natural formation already occured, and then he started making mountains in a way that exactly resembles the way they would have formed naturaly? :what: