Why do you believe in Creationism or Evolution?

[emmy27sf]

so why do u believe in evolution or creationism???

[Lucifer]

Unfortunately, they're wrong. Evolution isn't just a theory; people just say that because it makes it sound insignificant. It's still scientific, and mostly supported, unlike creationism. This is what I learned in class. Of course, you could still believe in something that's not supported, but it may not necessarily be true. On the other hand, if it is supported, it's more likely to be true, but the same holds: It doesn't matter what you think, the truth is out there, whether you believe it or not.

[2 and 92]

I accept evolution as a valid scientific theory that explains the diversity of life on this planet.

As a Christian, I believe that God created the Universe.

To me these statements do not contradict, I see no problem in God choosing to use what we would call natural processes to create.

I would say that since I believe that God created the universe, and the universe seems to indicate that evolution has occurred and that the universe is very old, to say that it is only 6000 years old because some monk who has too much time on his hands counted some birthdays up is also calling God a liar.

[Lucifer]

Deism?

[2 and 92]

Deism?

No, deism assumes that God has no interest in the universe or no longer exists.

Christianity assumes the opposite. I am a Theistic Evolutionist.

[Lucifer]

If god did create the universe, then did he create us or did we evolve? Does the bible lie? And how come we don't see him interferring? If he doesn't interfere, then it's deism.

[2 and 92]

If god did create the universe, then did he create us or did we evolve?

If I make a program that uses an evolutionary algorithm to create a new or better product have I created that product? U.S. patent law says yes, so does Boeing, Microsoft, and several other companies that have done so.

Does the bible lie?

Do you mean "Is the Bible meant to be read as a literal history and science book?" then no. I believe that the Bible is meant as a theological guide. It uses stories and symbolism to make theological points. These points can be true without the stories being true.

And how come we don't see him interferring? If he doesn't interfere, then it's deism.

You assume that we could even recognize that God was interfering, that somehow this interference must always look unnatural. There is no reason to make this assumption at all. There is no reason that any deity could not use what we would call natural processes to get a desired effect.

There may be times God uses means that we would call unnatural, but when you would look at then scientifically all you could say is "I do not know how this happened." I do not feel that God is so vain as to need to sign everything He does with an obvious mark like we humans feel we must.

[Lucifer]

If I make a program that uses an evolutionary algorithm to create a new or better product have I created that product? U.S. patent law says yes, so does Boeing, Microsoft, and several other companies that have done so.

Then do you know if he created us like the apes so we could develop into the species we are today? If God were perfect, he wouldn't need to do that.

Do you mean "Is the Bible meant to be read as a literal history and science book?" then no. I believe that the Bible is meant as a theological guide. It uses stories and symbolism to make theological points. These points can be true without the stories being true.

Then how do they explain the great flood? Was that just a small flood in a certain part of the world? How do they explain a person living inside a whale's stomach? It didn't happen?

You assume that we could even recognize that God was interfering, that somehow this interference must always look unnatural. There is no reason to make this assumption at all. There is no reason that any deity could not use what we would call natural processes to get a desired effect.

There may be times God uses means that we would call unnatural, but when you would look at then scientifically all you could say is "I do not know how this happened." I do not feel that God is so vain as to need to sign everything He does with an obvious mark like we humans feel we must.

Can you really be sure it's God and not something else? Just because science can't explain it now doesn't mean it won't. There are "miracles", but I've heard that even science can explain them.

[2 and 92]

If I make a program that uses an evolutionary algorithm to create a new or better product have I created that product? U.S. patent law says yes, so does Boeing, Microsoft, and several other companies that have done so.

Then do you know if he created us like the apes so we could develop into the species we are today? If God were perfect, he wouldn't need to do that.

And you know how a perfect being would act how?

Besides, why are you trying to pick a certain place in our past and say God created us there? Could it be that God was smart enough to give the universe its kick start and let the universe do all the work for him? Just as we do with evolutionary algorithms?

Do you mean "Is the Bible meant to be read as a literal history and science book?" then no. I believe that the Bible is meant as a theological guide. It uses stories and symbolism to make theological points. These points can be true without the stories being true.

Then how do they explain the great flood? Was that just a small flood in a certain part of the world? How do they explain a person living inside a whale's stomach? It didn't happen?

I would say no, it didnt happen. The flood might have been local, but there is no evidence of a world wide flood. And Jonah was most likely a fictional character too.

Who told you that this stuff all had to be literal? The stories make theological points, but they are not necessarily 100% literal. The best way to teach a child a point is to wrap it into a story, schools have done this for centuries, why are you so surprised to find that preachers might have done the same thing?

You assume that we could even recognize that God was interfering, that somehow this interference must always look unnatural. There is no reason to make this assumption at all. There is no reason that any deity could not use what we would call natural processes to get a desired effect.

There may be times God uses means that we would call unnatural, but when you would look at then scientifically all you could say is "I do not know how this happened." I do not feel that God is so vain as to need to sign everything He does with an obvious mark like we humans feel we must.

Can you really be sure it's God and not something else? Just because science can't explain it now doesn't mean it won't. There are "miracles", but I've heard that even science can explain them.

Now you assume that I randomly stuff God into every crack that science has not explained yet? Have you only known creationists? You do know that they are a minority group in Christianity. I have no need to try and stuff God in cracks, after all, since God started the whole show, explaining how something works in no way diminishes the fact that He created it all.

You seem to have a very narrow and distorted view of Christianity, not that I can blame you for this. It is much easier to paint a group in cartoon colors if you are going to make fun of them or fear them.

[Lucifer]

And you know how a perfect being would act how?

Besides, why are you trying to pick a certain place in our past and say God created us there? Could it be that God was smart enough to give the universe its kick start and let the universe do all the work for him? Just as we do with evolutionary algorithms?

So if he created that and let us and the natural universe do all that, then where does he interfere?

I would say no, it didnt happen. The flood might have been local, but there is no evidence of a world wide flood. And Jonah was most likely a fictional character too.

Who told you that this stuff all had to be literal? The stories make theological points, but they are not necessarily 100% literal. The best way to teach a child a point is to wrap it into a story, schools have done this for centuries, why are you so surprised to find that preachers might have done the same thing?

Normally, I would have read the bible as a piece of fiction anyways, but I wanted to see what level you would be considering the bible. Do you see it as a moral piece?

Now you assume that I randomly stuff God into every crack that science has not explained yet? Have you only known creationists? You do know that they are a minority group in Christianity. I have no need to try and stuff God in cracks, after all, since God started the whole show, explaining how something works in no way diminishes the fact that He created it all.

You seem to have a very narrow and distorted view of Christianity, not that I can blame you for this. It is much easier to paint a group in cartoon colors if you are going to make fun of them or fear them.

You seem really sure that God did create us all, despite there being scanty evidence. Is it faith? I'm not saying you're wrong, I want to see if you do have a good reason for this. Unfortunately, all the other people that I've met personally are either not religious, didn't bother to tell me about their beliefs, or are creationists and fundamentalists. However, the other christians that I've talked to on forums also seemed to rely on faith, though they weren't as bad as the fundamentalists.

[potwalloper]

Unfortunately the hypothesis of creationism cannot survive a rigorous scientific examination - the facts simply do not fit and to nitpick about the facts as presented does not in objective terms add any credence to this as a means of explaining life and its fluidity over geological time.

Evolution is by no means a catch all and does have flaws in scientific terms, however it more closely matches our observations of the world and allows for a credible timeline to be established that is supported by objective evidence such as fossil records and the development and adaptation of living organisms over relatively short time scales (eg bacterial resistance to antibiotics).

The survival of creationism as a concept in the modern world is more a reflection of a poor general understanding of science and its basic tenets than its ability to be justified as absolute truth. This is, unfortunately, a damning indictment of the failures of educational establishments to provide children with an objective explanation that is not coloured by subjective religious dogma.

There is no objective evidence to support creationism as a concept and it should therefore be discarded.

Nothing exists unless it can be measured...