Why do you believe in Creationism or Evolution?
Moderator: Moderators
Why do you believe in Creationism or Evolution?
Post #1so why do u believe in evolution or creationism???
-
jiveturkey705
- Newbie
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 10:07 pm
Post #51
Ok, I just joined because I wanted to put my oppinion in some of this. I didn't read all of the pages because it's pretty late and that would be alot ot read so forgive me if I am repeating something that someone said.
exactly!! its proposterious to think that evolution is truth. and if you believe in a creator(God) and read the bible is clearly says that he created the heavens earth and all the other things inbetween, so that rules you out. evolution even goes against other scientific theroys.
-emmy27sf
What I have to say about this: I am a Christian and believe in Creation, but I do not find it "proposterous" (not proposterious, haha) to believe in evolution. First of all, who's to say that God did not create evolution? The days in Genesis could be symbolic, couldn't they? Evolution DOES NOT say that God didn't create evolution, it just believes that we evolved. So, your statement about what the Bible clearly says clearly has nothing to do with that. I believe in creation because the Bible says there was no death before man, therefore, he created man at the same time, possibly before, dinosaurs. There are accounts in the Bible with dinosaurs (ei. the leviathan). And I do believe in evolution to a certain extent. I believe species evolve in certain things such as size, hair, muscular development, and other things. I don't, though, believe that we came from bacteria. It is obvious thought that we do evolve in some ways if you just think about DNA being passed down through time. If you had a gene that made the person's children very small, over time they would possibly get smaller and smaller. The same goes for dinosaurs, which in fact still exist in Africa. There was a man who went on a trip there several decades ago (I wish I remembered his name) and he brought with him a model of a long-necked dino. He asked a native if he had ever seen something like that and he replied something like this (obviously in their native language: "oh yes, that is the ... , we see those every now and then." In fact, the man also said that about 50 years or so before that, a group caught one and ate it. Check this guy out: www.drdino.com . I saw a video and he talked a lot about this.
Peace.
exactly!! its proposterious to think that evolution is truth. and if you believe in a creator(God) and read the bible is clearly says that he created the heavens earth and all the other things inbetween, so that rules you out. evolution even goes against other scientific theroys.
-emmy27sf
What I have to say about this: I am a Christian and believe in Creation, but I do not find it "proposterous" (not proposterious, haha) to believe in evolution. First of all, who's to say that God did not create evolution? The days in Genesis could be symbolic, couldn't they? Evolution DOES NOT say that God didn't create evolution, it just believes that we evolved. So, your statement about what the Bible clearly says clearly has nothing to do with that. I believe in creation because the Bible says there was no death before man, therefore, he created man at the same time, possibly before, dinosaurs. There are accounts in the Bible with dinosaurs (ei. the leviathan). And I do believe in evolution to a certain extent. I believe species evolve in certain things such as size, hair, muscular development, and other things. I don't, though, believe that we came from bacteria. It is obvious thought that we do evolve in some ways if you just think about DNA being passed down through time. If you had a gene that made the person's children very small, over time they would possibly get smaller and smaller. The same goes for dinosaurs, which in fact still exist in Africa. There was a man who went on a trip there several decades ago (I wish I remembered his name) and he brought with him a model of a long-necked dino. He asked a native if he had ever seen something like that and he replied something like this (obviously in their native language: "oh yes, that is the ... , we see those every now and then." In fact, the man also said that about 50 years or so before that, a group caught one and ate it. Check this guy out: www.drdino.com . I saw a video and he talked a lot about this.
Peace.
-
jiveturkey705
- Newbie
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 10:07 pm
Post #52
Also, I would like to point out that science cannot and never will prove anything but what you can see or feel. The only way that you could ever believe in God is by having faith. The only way you could ever believe in evolution is by having faith. All beliefs require faith, whether you like it or not. It takes a lot of faith to go from what an evolutionist may observe to claim to know how we came into existance.
Atheists, just think about this:
Let's say for a moment that God DOES exist. How could science EVER prove that he existed? If he is in spirit, and science is limited to what is physical and material, could you prove an existance of spirit or God? I don't believe you could. Therefore, no matter what you try and say to disprove God, your findings are never going to hold up because God is based on an idea that everything is not material. You can come up with reasons, but they are all going to be based on what you can sense with your 5 (some say more) senses. Also, God is completely outside of time. Some ask "who created God?" The answer that I would give is "God has no need for a creator because he doesn't age like matter does. All things that we can see are stuck in time and therefore MUST change and age. God doesn't age, and therefore doesn't need a beginning or an end."
So, Christians (me included): We are never going to be able to prove the existance of God.
Atheists, agnostics, etc...: You are never going to be able to disprove th existance of God.
The reason is that these theories are based on completely different views on existance, time, etc...
That's my say on it.
Atheists, just think about this:
Let's say for a moment that God DOES exist. How could science EVER prove that he existed? If he is in spirit, and science is limited to what is physical and material, could you prove an existance of spirit or God? I don't believe you could. Therefore, no matter what you try and say to disprove God, your findings are never going to hold up because God is based on an idea that everything is not material. You can come up with reasons, but they are all going to be based on what you can sense with your 5 (some say more) senses. Also, God is completely outside of time. Some ask "who created God?" The answer that I would give is "God has no need for a creator because he doesn't age like matter does. All things that we can see are stuck in time and therefore MUST change and age. God doesn't age, and therefore doesn't need a beginning or an end."
So, Christians (me included): We are never going to be able to prove the existance of God.
Atheists, agnostics, etc...: You are never going to be able to disprove th existance of God.
The reason is that these theories are based on completely different views on existance, time, etc...
That's my say on it.
Last edited by jiveturkey705 on Thu Sep 02, 2004 10:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post #53
Ahh the arrogance of some 'christians' who assume that atheists have not 'thought about it"jiveturkey705 wrote: Atheists, just think about this:
it is not up to 'scientists' or any one else for that matter to prove the non existence of god. The burden of proof lies with those making the claim. You claim god exists - prove it.jiveturkey705 wrote:How could science EVER prove that he existed?
What's that? You can't? Surprise, surprise.
The existence or not of god is a matter of belief i.e. god exists because you believe it to be so.
I can see no reason to believe.
you seem to know a lot about god - how do you know these things. Or do you just beleive them to be true?jiveturkey705 wrote: Also, God is completely outside of time.
"God has no need for a creator because he doesn't age like matter does. God doesn't age, and therefore doesn't need a beginning or an end."
Post #54
Actually, it's preposterous.jiveturkey705 wrote:Ok, I just joined because I wanted to put my oppinion in some of this. I didn't read all of the pages because it's pretty late and that would be alot ot read so forgive me if I am repeating something that someone said.
exactly!! its proposterious to think that evolution is truth. and if you believe in a creator(God) and read the bible is clearly says that he created the heavens earth and all the other things inbetween, so that rules you out. evolution even goes against other scientific theroys.
-emmy27sf
What I have to say about this: I am a Christian and believe in Creation, but I do not find it "proposterous" (not proposterious, haha)
I'm not sure if I have already answered the question, but if I have, here is further explanation on why I "believe" in Evolution. At the risk of sounding like a simpleton, I believe in evolution because there is no reason not to, and I trust the authority of the very many scientists with expertise in the area, just as I trust the authority of scientists when they tell me that atoms, electrons, viruses, bacteria, germs, radiowaves, X-rays, ultraviolet light, energy, entropy, enthalpy, solar fusion, genes, protein enzymes, and the DNA double-helix, all of which cannot be proven to exist through direct means, do in fact exist. I trust scientists when they tell me the earth orbits the sun, though there is no direct proof for it. The only reason the concepts mentioned have not been challenged is because they do not contradict any doctrines.
<i>'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.'</i>
-John Keats, Ode on a Grecian Urn.
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.'</i>
-John Keats, Ode on a Grecian Urn.
Post #55
For me I personally believe in creatism, really we dont have total proof of either...BUT to me there is more proof to God, than there is evolution...I have asked many people if they could explian their proof of evolution...most couldnt....and i have asked people on their opinions on God, and they gave me an explanition..thats not the total reason i feel the way i do though.
Post #56
Geek411 wrote:For me I personally believe in creatism, really we dont have total proof of either...BUT to me there is more proof to God, than there is evolution...
be my guest - offer some of these 'proof(s) to god'.
Philosophers for centuries have been trying to - maybe you are onto something that has not been heard before.
Geek411 wrote: I have asked many people if they could explian their proof of evolution...most couldnt....
were they scientists who understood it enough to explain it to you in a way which you could understand? Have you investigated any of the literature which tries to explain the theory in simple terms. You could try having a look at www.talkorigins.org for starters
Geek411 wrote: and i have asked people on their opinions on God, and they gave me an explanition..
are you saying by this that because people had an understanding of god but no understanding of evolution, this is evidence of the existence of god and the non-existence of evolution?
-
jiveturkey705
- Newbie
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 10:07 pm
Post #57
it is not up to 'scientists' or any one else for that matter to prove the non existence of god. The burden of proof lies with those making the claim. You claim god exists - prove it.
What's that? You can't? Surprise, surprise.
-bernee51
So, Christians (me included): We are never going to be able to prove the existance of God.
Atheists, agnostics, etc...: You are never going to be able to disprove th existance of God.
The reason is that these theories are based on completely different views on existance, time, etc...
-ME
I already said the same thing you just said. Neither of us can prove God. I asked for you to think about what I said if you are an atheist and you still didn't respond directly to it. I wanted you to tell me how God could be proven in matter if he exists outside of matter. And you wonder how I know that time to God does not exist and that he does not age? I know this because it is common sense. If there is God, he created matter and time. That means that they do not affect him. This is the concept of God. God has always existed and he always will, therefore he obviously doesn't age. If he created matter and time, and he is spirit, then he is not bound to the laws of matter and time. It is a concept hard for a human mind to grasp. Do you really expect to be able to understand everything about something as complex and amazing as God? That's impossible. No creation is going to know everything about their creator. We are way to simple minded to be able to comprehend it completely. That is the reason for so many "contradicting" statements in the Bible about Jesus and God. One minute it sounds like Jesus and God are separate and then the next it sounds like they're the same. It's hard, and impossible, to understand this completely.
What's that? You can't? Surprise, surprise.
-bernee51
So, Christians (me included): We are never going to be able to prove the existance of God.
Atheists, agnostics, etc...: You are never going to be able to disprove th existance of God.
The reason is that these theories are based on completely different views on existance, time, etc...
-ME
I already said the same thing you just said. Neither of us can prove God. I asked for you to think about what I said if you are an atheist and you still didn't respond directly to it. I wanted you to tell me how God could be proven in matter if he exists outside of matter. And you wonder how I know that time to God does not exist and that he does not age? I know this because it is common sense. If there is God, he created matter and time. That means that they do not affect him. This is the concept of God. God has always existed and he always will, therefore he obviously doesn't age. If he created matter and time, and he is spirit, then he is not bound to the laws of matter and time. It is a concept hard for a human mind to grasp. Do you really expect to be able to understand everything about something as complex and amazing as God? That's impossible. No creation is going to know everything about their creator. We are way to simple minded to be able to comprehend it completely. That is the reason for so many "contradicting" statements in the Bible about Jesus and God. One minute it sounds like Jesus and God are separate and then the next it sounds like they're the same. It's hard, and impossible, to understand this completely.
-
jiveturkey705
- Newbie
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 10:07 pm
-
nikolayevich
- Scholar
- Posts: 312
- Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 5:51 pm
- Location: Vancouver
Post #59
It's interesting that you present that article, especially since we're talking about proofs for creation / evolution. While I agree that we can never fully prove anything scientifically, it is useless to live based on what we prove as being without any doubt. This applies whether one believes in evolution or creation, and therefore the "proof/non-proof" bit above is a fruitless argument given the context of this thread. The statement that the burden of proof is on the creationist can just as easily [and necessarily] be turned around to say the same about evolutionists and their theory. The proof is not on the evolutionist to prove the nonexistence of God- That is NOT what this thread is about. It is about Evolution or Creation.
That said, the statement that the evolutionist need not provide proof of the nonexistence of God whereas the creationist must prove His existence, is a clever way of ducking the same scrutiny one places on another.
What I am saying is that the evolutionist must also shoulder the burden of proof for the theory of evolution. To be fair let's couch the problem in this way:
The creationist must provide evidence of Creation and the evolutionist must provide evidence of Evolution. Either can critique the other's evidence or "proofs" and only in this way do we really have a balanced debate.
Perloff (in the article linked to by 705) notes but a handful of the major errors in the history of evolution. What I've found fascinating are the number of errors that still find their way into new textbooks.
Any way one approaches it, if you look at evolution's major proofs / confirmations, there are holes which strain the theory. The best way it seems this is compensated for is to trump flawed theories with brand new discoveries, in what seems like a way of moving our attention away from weaknesses to things which simply haven't been scrutinized enough yet- breaking news... these sorts of things.
On a side note, for 705, related to the proof of God: That He is outside of the universe does not mean there is no evidence for Him. To the contrary, if He exists the way the Bible describes Him as existing, He has provided evidence of Himself in countless ways, and He, who was made flesh... walked the Earth, and stirred up the greatest storm ever. When judging beliefs, it's important to judge them based on the tenets belonging to those beliefs. In the above, if it is true, then God has participated directly, face to face with Humans. He is not limited to enter His creation nor does any biblical text say so. I only mention this because you assume there is no way of evaluating Him, but what is that based on? Any action must have a reaction. Jesus, action... reaction... creation, cause... effect.
That said, the statement that the evolutionist need not provide proof of the nonexistence of God whereas the creationist must prove His existence, is a clever way of ducking the same scrutiny one places on another.
What I am saying is that the evolutionist must also shoulder the burden of proof for the theory of evolution. To be fair let's couch the problem in this way:
The creationist must provide evidence of Creation and the evolutionist must provide evidence of Evolution. Either can critique the other's evidence or "proofs" and only in this way do we really have a balanced debate.
Perloff (in the article linked to by 705) notes but a handful of the major errors in the history of evolution. What I've found fascinating are the number of errors that still find their way into new textbooks.
Any way one approaches it, if you look at evolution's major proofs / confirmations, there are holes which strain the theory. The best way it seems this is compensated for is to trump flawed theories with brand new discoveries, in what seems like a way of moving our attention away from weaknesses to things which simply haven't been scrutinized enough yet- breaking news... these sorts of things.
On a side note, for 705, related to the proof of God: That He is outside of the universe does not mean there is no evidence for Him. To the contrary, if He exists the way the Bible describes Him as existing, He has provided evidence of Himself in countless ways, and He, who was made flesh... walked the Earth, and stirred up the greatest storm ever. When judging beliefs, it's important to judge them based on the tenets belonging to those beliefs. In the above, if it is true, then God has participated directly, face to face with Humans. He is not limited to enter His creation nor does any biblical text say so. I only mention this because you assume there is no way of evaluating Him, but what is that based on? Any action must have a reaction. Jesus, action... reaction... creation, cause... effect.
Post #60
jiveturkey705:
Welcome to the forums.
Please do not post a link without comment. This is not a rule, but a way to keep debate going in a thoughtful manner. Tell us where we are going and what you think of it (though that may be obvious). I realize this was meant to be an add-on to your previous post, but please provide some context for links that you give.
Welcome to the forums.
Please do not post a link without comment. This is not a rule, but a way to keep debate going in a thoughtful manner. Tell us where we are going and what you think of it (though that may be obvious). I realize this was meant to be an add-on to your previous post, but please provide some context for links that you give.
