Creationish Vs Evolutionism? BE POLITE!

[RetiredGuns]

I am Jewish. I believe in God but not that everything is controlled by creationism. One who believes in God cannot believe that he created man to be too stupid to do some of the great things we've done by ourselves.

We were created in his image and given the huge responsibility of free will. I'd say his creation is pretty darn good.

 

[miltmaldo]

I believe in creation . I don't think all this was created in 7 days . I believe 7 days in the bible is 7 period . Meaning day 1 can equal 1 million years day 2 can be 5 years etc ,etc , . The Bible tells me With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

People see creation as a religion thing . Religion has nothing to do with God people invented religion . And the believe in the bible doesn't make me a religious person it just make me some who believes in Gods creation and his plan for what he created.

 

[Esav Benyamin]

I am Jewish. I believe in God but not that everything is controlled by creationism. One who believes in God cannot believe that he created man to be too stupid to do some of the great things we've done by ourselves.

Niccolò Machiavelli's
The PRINCE

God is with us, yet God is not willing to do everything, and thus take away our free will and that share of glory which is ours.

 

[SunsetFisherman]

I believe evolution is simply not possible, never once ever has nature been proven to change into a more complicated state than it started, things always revert to a simpler state of existence. It is more likely that humans evolved INTO apes rather than from them if you look at it purely scientifically.

Also to the OP, gen 1 and 2 ARE different stories, written by different people with different beliefs which shows through in the order that they list creation happening in. Each of the 5 books of moses are intertwinings of 4 or 5 different authors it would take some digging but I can send you reference material on that if you're interested. The differences show up the most in the creation as well as the flood stores in genesis. One must understand that most biblical writings were passed down as an oral tradition, eventually written down, and sometime later translated and conglomerated by a scribe, and later through more translations we have what we now know of as the Bible. So if you're studying an english bible you're more than likely looking at something quite different from the original text it came from.

 

[Tahts-a-dats-ago]

If it's easily disproven then disprove it. What you are making is an argument from personal incredulity. And then you bring up probability, but considering the number of stars in the universe, the number of potentially habitable plabets orbiting those stars and the vast length of time involved the probability isn't a simple factor. A 1 in 1 billion happenstance become likely if there are 10 billion opportunities for it.

To my satisfaction, the theory of evolution has been disproved.

YMMV

And that is perfectly OK by me.

Moving on to statistics:

A billion to one odds do not become likely even in the event that there are 10 billion opportunities - the odds remain a billion to one.

But we're not speaking of such favorable odds. We're speaking of odds that mathematically, show trillions upon trillions of opportunities (per second) spread out over billions of years, aren't possible. Not even once - and it would have to happen millions of times (in that same period of time) for evolution (Darwinism) to be factual. It is a mathematical impossibility.

That's science, not mere personal incredulity.

 

[jimh0220]

This is the debate that has no concrete evidence. Nobody there can tell us for sure. If you believe in the Bible as a literal history of the creation, it is based on belief, not fact. Same with evolution. It's a theory, not proven science. What's the answer? Nobody knows for sure, but we all choose what we believe, and accept that as our reality. As a rule, I never debate against evolution, though I personally beleive in the Creation. Why, because neither side has THE proof. Who's right? Dunno.

 

[liamstrain]

Same with evolution. It's a theory, not proven science.

Scientific theories are based on facts and observations, and are testable. You find rabbits in the Cretaceous and evolution has serious issues - but we don't. What we find in the fossil record and the dna (and experimentation, and current observations) is all consistent with evolution. Proven science, time and time again. There is no such test for creationism.

 

[liamstrain]

I'm sorry, but one part of that I forgot to throw in, I don't want to go back and edit my post now.
The difference is that each one of those single celled organisms living in groups can also survive on their own. you can't exactly cut someones liver out and expect the liver or the other parts of them to still work. Hopefully I won't remember something I forgot to say and prolong this discourse any longer. Good day Brother.

The modern liver as it's evolved as part of a system, no. The first cooperative cells that began to perform the liver's function 600 million years ago, maybe. The increased specialization over time of those cooperative cells, makes them unsuited to other tasks (e.g. survival on their own). Much like in a lichen you have the symbiosis between algae and fungus. Both are recognizably different and at one point could survive independently. Now, neither one can survive without the other, despite being a community made of discrete entities - now, one entity - Lichen.

 

[JackHammer]

If Creationism were true, then a human fetus would start out as an extremely small human and get larger. But it doesn't. It starts out as a one celled entity, becomes a multi celled entity, eventually resembles a fish complete with gills, and eventually spells out all the evolutionary steps we took to become who we are.
For me, science cannot explain how all the matter and energy in the universe came from a microscopic spec or what caused that spec to detonate, so if you need a Supreme Being, that's where to look.

 

[silenthunterstudios]

I am what you might call a lapsed Catholic. Raised in a Catholic household, went to Sunday school. I also believe that science has the best idea about how the whole party started.

The Catholic church states that evolution is the best theory to come down the pike. I agree with that whole heartedly, but I am not in lockstep with the Catholic church either. Doesn't mean that I disagree or agree with their teachings, I do believe in God. I think the universe is older than ten thousand years.

I do not think that religion has anything to do with science, but that God has everything to do with science. I believe that God at least started the big party known as life, and will show up from time to time to "bend the laws of physics", or, create a miracle. Whether my ancestors came out of the Garden of Eden, or were small rats scurrying away from dinosaurs, it doesn't matter to me. What matters to me, is that there is someone or something on the other side when I make the final trip.

I have always believed that you should not put limitations on God. If God decided to create evolution, and let things gradually occur over millions of years, then so be it.

 

[Daft Slice 1986]

Numbers 15:32-36
While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. 33 And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. 34 They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. 35 And the LORD said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” 36 And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the LORD commanded Moses.

I don't believe in creationism because of passages like this. Is there a God? Nobody knows, I won't say there is NO god because we can't prove that. I'm just very anti-religion.

 

[silenthunterstudios]

I think a better description is "eternal separation" If a person believes in the God of the bible, the thought of eternal separation is probably more frightening than pitch forks and hot lava. Imagine standing in front of the creator of the universe, realizing how everything works, the profound love for us and then separated from that forever. Off topic I know but wanted to address what many view as hell.

.

I believe this whole heartedly. Take a look at God as sentient energy, the "center" of everything, if you will. You die, your spirit goes back into the "whole". We re-connect with our loved ones on a spiritual level we cannot conceive of, while becoming one with God. You die, you glimpse this vision of paradise/reunion, and you are forbidden to return to the whole, your spirit must be cleansed before you return to become part of God. This is purgatory, which may only last an instant. You die, you glimpse the vision of paradise, and you are forbidden to ever enter. This is hell.

I have nothing to back up my ideals, but I am fine with them. I view God as a compassionate God, if he wasn't, Earth would be a really empty place. Pope John Paul II said he didn't know if ANYONE was in hell. There are some I'd like to see there, God tends to forgive a lot of people, including me for thinking like that.

Back to the conversation. My accident changed my beliefs, greatly. I survived, and thank God for that. I always had a belief in God, but never really a Faith . I now know that he will do whatever is best for me. Doesn't mean I sit like a bump on a log and wait for Him to do his will. I believe life/evolution was created as an experiment, and it is ever changing. It would have been easier to go poof, here we are. I think it would be more fun and challenging to let evolution take it's course.

 

[Klok]

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

The Discovery Institute, a pro–intelligent design lobby group located in the United States, also claims that because there is a significant lack of public support for evolution, that public schools should, as their campaign states, "Teach the Controversy". Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued official statements disputing this claim[2]

The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.[22][23][24][25][26] One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science

There are no hypotheses, alternative to the principle of evolution with its "tree of life," that any competent biologist of today takes seriously. Moreover, the principle is so important for an understanding of the world we live in and of ourselves that the public in general, including students taking biology in high school, should be made aware of it, and of the fact that it is firmly established, even as the rotundity of the earth is firmly established.[48]

Creationists strongly dispute the fact that there is overwhelming support for evolution in the science community.[54] One of the first attempts to provide evidence that there were substantial number of scientists who disagreed with evolution was a pamphlet produced by the Institute for Creation Research in 1971 entitled "21 Scientists Who Believe in Creation"[55] This pamphlet has been reprinted several times. Skeptics have claimed that this list of 21 creation supporters is misleading since it includes five people with PhDs in engineering, three in education, two in theology, two in biochemistry, one in physics, one in chemistry, one in hydrology, one in entomology, one in psycholinguistics, one in food science technology, one in ecology, one in physiology and one in geophysics; and therefore only a small minority had qualifications related to evolutionary biology.[

In fact, evolution is being put to practical use in industry and widely used on a daily basis by researchers in medicine, biochemistry, molecular biology, and genetics to both formulate hypotheses about biological systems for the purposes of experimental design, as well as to rationalise observed data and prepare applications.[28][105][106][107] As of June 2012 there are 318,926 scientific papers in PubMed that mention 'evolution'.[108] Pharmaceutical companies utilize biological evolution in their development of new products, and also use these medicines to combat evolving bacteria and viruses.[106]

Because of the perceived value of evolution in applications, there have been some expressions of support for evolution on the part of corporations. In Kansas, there has been some widespread concern in the corporate and academic communities that a move to weaken the teaching of evolution in schools will hurt the state's ability to recruit the best talent, particularly in the biotech industry.[109] Paul Hanle of the Biotechnology Institute warned that the United States risks falling behind in the biotechnology race with other nations if it does not do a better job of teaching evolution.[110] James McCarter of Divergence Incorporated states that the work of 2001 Nobel Prize winner Leland Hartwell which has substantial implications for combating cancer relied heavily on the use of evolutionary knowledge and predictions. McCarter points out that 47 of the last 50 Nobel Prizes in medicine or physiology also depended on the use of evolutionary theory.[111]

youtube is really the place to go just to see debates on both sides (I will only post relevant and civil vids I have no intention of being inflammatory and only seek to educate or spark deba
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1xUiuZvUuw Is rather interesting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svHQ4BQY__o Bill Nye explains evolution
UOIT Debate: Evolution vs. Creation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6X_LGsJODA (I have yet to finish pre-screening this so far it is civil and polite and two hours long)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ar6Pd8TU3Dg Carl Sagan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKVNWwk7LIg Creationism - Hear the Scientists Respond
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yx3XmlR7XKA how to prove the earth is 6000 years old

 

[J85909266]

I haven't currently found any acceptable theories for existence. So, it's inexplicable, for me. I don't think mankind is anywhere near a breakthrough, in this matter.

 

[shunsui]

I don't believe in gods or religions. "Creationish" is off the table.

Evolution ? Frankly I don't know much about it from the ultra technical point of view, but I suspect it's in the correct ballpark.

Eight years with the Nuns, high school and college with the Jesuits. Prayer in schools ? Knock yourself out.

 

[cncpro11]

I'm just very anti-religion.

So was Jesus. He hated religion, and reserved his harshest criticisms for the religious.

 

[Klok]

So was Jesus. He hated religion, and reserved his harshest criticisms for the religious.

I also have *Fun facts jesus also affirmed a gay couple http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/gay_couple.html
not sure the relation to anything but is interesting

fixed the typo, maybe intent will be conveyed properly now.

 

[Nordic Viking]

The reason people in this thread are Christians is purely random luck mostly influenced by when and where they were born. If they were born in say Saudi Arabia or Tibet or 3000 years ago they would not have been.

I can understand wanting to believe the earth is young because that would excuse your god from ignoring you for 99% of humankind's existence.

I am very grateful for living in the time of Dawkins, Tyson et. el. where they not only explain these myths but have such a passion that they encourage humankind to be more inquisitive and interested in science.

20 years ago someone could claim to have seen a man's arm grow back and be believed by a few. We know this is not true because it is biologically impossible, not because we have less faith but because we know more about biology. Imagine how wise and astute the world is going to be when science is commonplace and someone claims someone else's arm grew back or that the world is only 10000 years old.

 

[cncpro11]

I also have Fan facts jesus also affirmed a gay couple http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/gay_couple.html
not sure the relation to anything but is interesting

Never heard of fan facts, no idea what it is.
You are correct, that article has absolutely nothing to do with the original topic so I wont comment and derail the thread.

 

[RetiredGuns]

If Creationism were true, then a human fetus would start out as an extremely small human and get larger. But it doesn't. It starts out as a one celled entity, becomes a multi celled entity, eventually resembles a fish complete with gills, and eventually spells out all the evolutionary steps we took to become who we are..

This is a perfect argument FOR creation. A man & a woman can come together and do something in 9 months that otherwise is believed to take billions of years!