Why do you believe in Creationism or Evolution?

[emmy27sf]

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

[jiveturkey705]

It's interesting that you present that article, especially since we're talking about proofs for creation / evolution. 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.

Well actually, the article did have to do with evolution vs. creation. I know what I said before didn't but that did. And I fully agree with what you are saying. What I was trying to get across though is that those ways that he shows himself on the earth are not sufficiant to an evolutionist or a non-christian. They need something that is not shown by actions or fruits, or a book. They want something that is "scientific." I do agree with what you are saying though, and I fully understand. That, though, is not going to win an arguement with an evolutionist.

[nikolayevich]

They need something that is not shown by actions or fruits, or a book. They want something that is "scientific."

Actions = events or causes which have corresponding effects. What part of that is not scientific? How could God as He is described in the Bible, not leave any trace of Himself in a world He created.

Have you ever seen a car, even stripped of all it's labels and logos that did not lend us clues to its maker? Paleontologists must evaluate fossils and determine who they belonged to, without labels and logos. They believe that the fossils give clues as to the origins of a given species and work hard to connect the dots to dates, ancestry, and so forth. Do you not believe that if God exists, there could be evidence through these same things to His handiwork? How is it we can believe that so many other things made by an individual provide evidence to their designer, but that no such things throughout all of history would give testimony to God? I don't believe God has left us without even natural cause to believe. It sounds fairly arbitrary to me to say that every other thing can be evidenced, except for God. I wouldn't be so unsure.

I understand when the atheist/agnostic doesn't believe because they don't "see" any evidence, precisely because they are right that there should be evidence of a designer!

I think to say there is no scientific way of finding any evidence of God, is too often said by Christians to try to appease evolutionists, or perhaps duck the statement above so that we can believe in God and creation but not have to challenge or be challenged.

The only way that you could ever believe in God is by having faith.

The exact same thing can be said about belief in evolution. It's a self-serving (for a given position) statement. You don't have to go too far into details to realize that much of what any single individual believes about evolution runs into an area which must be appealed to another authority. There are simply too many areas of research (the universe is too complex) for one individual to prove the entire theory of evolution across every field. An astrophysicist may believe she has proven big bang cosmology (and evolution of the cosmos), but may appeal to a molecular biologist to lend credence to biological evolution. You may quip that there are a few individuals who may know enough to study both to the extreme, but could you (myself included)? Do most evolutionists, student or teacher, have this capacity? Let's pretend they could handle a couple or even a few of these... What about other fields, geology, paleontology, zoology and all of their branches of study?... Do you really think that you can know enough about all of these things personally, without appealing to authority? I think we can be certain that ANY world view requires "faith". Once we acknowledge this, the debate enters new ground which I think is very fruitful. Both sides learn more when accepting these things. It's one reason I would never call an evolutionist "stupid", because we are all faced with faith decisions and it isn't so easy. Our positions seem "obvious" to us, but obviously not to the other side and vice versa...

I do agree with what you are saying though, and I fully understand. That, though, is not going to win an arguement with an evolutionist.

I think that an evolutionist can understand that if God exists, there should be evidence, as mentioned.

[harmonium]

The only way that you could ever believe in God is by having faith.

I think you are partially correct, however it is important to realize that any position (creation/evolution/whatever) actually requires faith. This is not a blind faith but rather a reasonable faith. An evolutionist looks at the available evidence and believes that the evidence supports evolution despite the fact that they were not there during the billions of years that life apparently evolved. This is a faith-based decision.

A creationist, on the other hand, has the same evidence that the evolutionist does and yet believes that creationism more accurately provides explanation for the available evidence. They then, by reasonable faith, decide to believe in a creator - also despite the fact that they were not there for the creation.

For Christians, the Bible actually says that the creation itself is evidence for the existence of a creator. "For his [God's] invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they [humankind] are without excuse." Romans 1: 20,21

One of the things that is so powerful for me with the Christian faith, is that it is not a blind faith. It does not call us to check out our brains when we believe but rather it calls us to use our minds and to test the claims it makes. For myself, in my quest for the truth, I did that and I found that the claims of the bible best explained reality in line with the available evidence. When I became a Christian it was not just an emotional response to a inner need but it was an alignment of my heart and mind.

[jiveturkey705]

I didn't mean that the way it came out. I meant that you must have faith to believe in God. I added to that post so check it out. I agree with what you are saying and I would never say that Christianity is a blind faith. If it was, I wouldn't believe it. You really need to check out those debates on www.drdino.com . He talks about the faith required to be an evolutionist. He also talks about the many proofs involved with creation. I think he has many very good scientific proofs of God.

[Lotan]

jiveturkey705 wrote:

You really need to check out those debates on www.drdino.com . He talks about the faith required to be an evolutionist. He also talks about the many proofs involved with creation. I think he has many very good scientific proofs of God.

Scientific?

Actually, Kent Hovind relies on discredited arguments that even other creationists won't use. Here is a link to an article entitled 'Maintaining Creationist Integrity-A Response to Kent Hovind.' from the Answers in Genesis website. If you type his name into your search engine you might be very interested to see what others think about him

[ST88]

A creationist, on the other hand, has the same evidence that the evolutionist does and yet believes that creationism more accurately provides explanation for the available evidence. They then, by reasonable faith, decide to believe in a creator - also despite the fact that they were not there for the creation.

I don't think this is true. I think Creationists come at the issue already convinced of the existence of God. Or, if not totally convinced, then at least have gone more than halfway towards it. Creationism, as a "pure" science, does not have enough substance behind it to sway people from one side to the other. It may sway people, but not for scientific reasons. It is more of an apologist's tool to show that God's handiwork should be visible to even secular scientists. The Creationist arguments that have survived so far are those which have not yet been falsified by evidence. However, because the Creationst already has the idea of how the universe was created, the arguments make even more sense because they reach to the level of belief, something which does not happen with non-Creationst arguments.

I submit that there is no such thing as an Evolutionist. Evolution is not a faith-based theory. It is a working theory, which means that subsequent discoveries can be interpreted within the context of evolution. This is not the same thing as having a belief and seeing evidence in terms of this belief. If enough viable evidence appears that contradicts the evolution model, it will be abandoned and/or radically modified, I assure you.

[Lotan]

ST88 wrote:

The Creationist arguments that have survived so far are those which have not yet been falsified by evidence.

If only this were true! Many discredited arguments are repeated over and over again by individuals and organizations with a creationist agenda. For example, a few months ago I had the misfortune of attending an evangelical church service that was hosting a speaker from the Answers in Genesis organization. The presentation was full of scientific and logical errors, and relied heavily on assertions and emotional appeals. One piece of 'evidence' presented was the Bristlecone Pine tree, at 4,700 yrs. the oldest living thing on earth. It's great age made it a perfect candidate for the first tree to grow after the flood. This is all fine and dandy, except that the real oldest living thing on earth (known so far) is the King Clone Creosote bush which is 11,700 yrs. old! Maybe the Answers in Genesis people don't have Google.
Another serial offender is Dr. Grady McMurtry who is a fairly regular guest on our local Christian radio station. This fellow will happily proclaim the importance of polystrate fossils as evidence for the rapid deposition of geological strata caused by 'The Flood' even though they have been understood by geologists for the past 200 years, almost as soon as they were discovered!
And how about that Lee Strobel, hawking his latest book "The Case For a Creator", telling millions of radio listeners that there are thousands of unfossilized dinosaur bones? I'm sure we'd all like to see them.
Anyone can make a mistake or unknowingly repeat a false statement, but these folks are in the 'creation' business, and should know better. Unless, they actually do know better...?

[harmonium]

I don't think this is true. I think Creationists come at the issue already convinced of the existence of God. Or, if not totally convinced, then at least have gone more than halfway towards it.

How is this any different than an Evolutionist who comes to the issue already convinced of the non-existence of God? Obviously both sides come to the issue with a bias and they view the available evidence within that bias.

Creationism, as a "pure" science, does not have enough substance behind it to sway people from one side to the other. It may sway people, but not for scientific reasons. It is more of an apologist's tool to show that God's handiwork should be visible to even secular scientists. The Creationist arguments that have survived so far are those which have not yet been falsified by evidence. However, because the Creationst already has the idea of how the universe was created, the arguments make even more sense because they reach to the level of belief, something which does not happen with non-Creationst arguments.

I think you could say exactly the same thing about an Evolutionist. Do you have any idea how many different arguments in support of Evolution have been dropped once they were proved false? Isn't that the idea behind the scientific method? It sounds like you haven't even looked at the incredible amount of scientific evidence that supports the creationist worldview. To start I would recommend that you check out the Discovery Institute at http://www.discovery.org/csc/ which specializes in intelligent design theory.

The fact is that many scientists in many major universities are creationists, and many others, while not creationists, are growing very doubtful of the theory of evolution and are looking for a replacement.

I submit that there is no such thing as an Evolutionist. Evolution is not a faith-based theory. It is a working theory, which means that subsequent discoveries can be interpreted within the context of evolution. This is not the same thing as having a belief and seeing evidence in terms of this belief. If enough viable evidence appears that contradicts the evolution model, it will be abandoned and/or radically modified, I assure you.

It depends exactly what you mean by "evolution" I guess. If you are talking about micro-evolution, which involves genetic variations within a species, then I agree with you. However, if you are talking about a level of change above the species level which proposes the creation of an entirely new species then I think the evidence for such an occurence is highly debatable. If you call such a form of evolution a "working theory" then I would love to see it actually work because I've personally never seen any conclusive evidence that such a form of evolution actually happens.

Ultimately, the main part of my point was that none of us were there at the beginning. Since none of us were there and thus saw it take place, it subsequently takes faith to believe that you knew what happened. Again, faith is not a leap in the dark, it is a reasoned decision based on what we know. If a friend of mine tells me a story that I wasn't present to witness, it is an act of faith to believe that what he is telling me is true. Same goes with the origins of life - except that in that case you have several contradicting stories. Only one of them can be true, and so you've got to choose one or none. The fact is that regardless of what choice you make, it still takes faith to do so.

[ST88]

How is this any different than an Evolutionist who comes to the issue already convinced of the non-existence of God? Obviously both sides come to the issue with a bias and they view the available evidence within that bias.

It's different because there is no need for a disbelief in God. Creationism presupposes a belief in God. Evolution presupposes nothing, not even that there is or is not a God. There are many Christians who regard evolution as a viable theory. I know many Christians -- and at least one Jew -- who think that evolution was set in motion by God. Evolution does not deny God, it denies Young-Earth Creationism.

I think I sufficiently explained that scientists who work with evolution do not have the same kind of bias as Creationists do, they treat evolution as a working theory.

Do you have any idea how many different arguments in support of Evolution have been dropped once they were proved false? Isn't that the idea behind the scientific method? It sounds like you haven't even looked at the incredible amount of scientific evidence that supports the creationist worldview. To start I would recommend that you check out the Discovery Institute at http://www.discovery.org/csc/ which specializes in intelligent design theory.

The fact is that many scientists in many major universities are creationists, and many others, while not creationists, are growing very doubtful of the theory of evolution and are looking for a replacement.

The arguments you speak of that were dropped, such as the gradual horse skeleton exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History in the 1930s(?), were not a part of the actual theory of evolution, they were examples of how scientists thought it worked. When these examples turned out to be specious, or hoaxes, or just plain wrong, they were not wrong in a way that disproved evolution. In fact, they set the theory in a more striking light, and we understand that the story is much more complicated that we thought it was.

By contrast, because Creationist theories come at us from a single point -- the existence of God -- the lines between that single point and us today must exist or else the theory is false.

The fact that many scientists are doubtful about evolution does not surprise me (a fact which, although improbable, I will not dispute because I don't have any hard data). There are only so many slots available at universities. Only the Ph.D. candidates that make names for themselves are the ones who are going to get jobs; and only the most provocative researchers are the ones who are going to get all the attention.

Ultimately, the main part of my point was that none of us were there at the beginning. Since none of us were there and thus saw it take place, it subsequently takes faith to believe that you knew what happened. Again, faith is not a leap in the dark, it is a reasoned decision based on what we know. If a friend of mine tells me a story that I wasn't present to witness, it is an act of faith to believe that what he is telling me is true. Same goes with the origins of life - except that in that case you have several contradicting stories. Only one of them can be true, and so you've got to choose one or none. The fact is that regardless of what choice you make, it still takes faith to do so.

You are correct in stating that we will never have direct and personal knowledge of exactly how life started or became so diverse up to now. The difference here is that the faith that requires belief in God requires the belief of other people to tell you. And it's not just that they tell you that there is a God, but they tell you here's how he works. And this story they tell you originally was told to them from other people; and finally you get back to the original story, and it came from a single source. So you have an entire world of believing people relying on a single source.

However, with evolution, or with any other scientific theory, the stories you hear told aren't just from a single source. They are from replicable experimentation and examination. And they come from all over the globe. The scientific process says that theories cannot exist without viable supportable evidence. This doesn't mean that as soon as someone writes down the result of an experiment it is taken as truth. When someone publishes a scientific paper, it is seen as a challenge to the rest of the scientific community to obtain similar results and come to the same conclusions using the same methods. If they are confirmable, they can be accepted. If not, into the dumper.

And I still say that faith does not apply to science. The only faith involved is that which drives us to actually perform science in the first place, i.e., the faith is not that our questions will yield answers, but that the answers will have made our questions worthwhile. We can have expectations, we can have suspicions, we can have dreams; but faith requires an acceptance of the unknowable, which is unacceptable.

[bernee51]

And I still say that faith does not apply to science. The only faith involved is that which drives us to actually perform science in the first place,...

I would think that it would behove creationists to encourage more and more scientific research into evolution.

If they are so certain in their beliefs then they must believe that eventually science will prove them correct.

Why are they so down on the scientiific?