Why do you believe in Creationism or Evolution?

[emmy27sf]

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

[Cathar1950]

ENIGMA wrote:

Seriously, though, the concepts of conciousness and free will are outside the scope of evolutionary theory. Currently, we honestly don't know about how those work (or in the case of free will if they really do work).

I have seem some things in quantum physics that are trying so I am not sure it will not some day be with-in the scope of evolutionary theory.
You know what would really be a bummer? If the idea of God and creationism was something that has evolved biologically as a possible trait.
There are those that do make that argument. It could make both creationism and evolution wrong and right. I hope it is aliens.
I hope they fixed what ever it was at Roswell. I am not getting into one until i get a report from some independent research team that ride them every day. With their pets.

[Iasion]

Greetings all,

While the Bible has been rewritten many times, it remains one of the most reliable and complete historical documents in human history.

Rubbish.
No historian would agree with this.
The NT is full of numerous errors - both in the OT and the NT.

The has so many different perspectives in it and was written by so many people, yet only 1.5% of it is erronous.

Nonsense.
What on earth does this 1.5% figure MEAN?

Also, the errors that ARE in the Bible are stupid LITTLE errors like maybe a number conflict or a tense conflict - nothing big that would go against the consistency or truth of Christian teaching.

Rubbish.
The contradictions in the bible cover many key issues:

The words of God at the baptism in early MSS and quotes have "...this day have I begotten thee" (echoing Psalm 2) - later, as dogma about when Jesus become god had crystallized, thus phrase became "..in thee I am well pleased". If scribes can change the alleged words of God, they can change anything.
Another important variation is the ending of G.Mark - there are four different endings to this Gospels in various MSS, the original ending being 16:8

Other MSS variations include :
* the issue of salvation through the Christ's Blood,
* the Trinity - found in no MSS before the 16th century!
* the Lord's prayer - much variations in manuscripts,
* the names of the 12 apostles are highly variable in MSS and indeed the Gospels.
http://members.aol.com/PS418/manuscript.html

As for proof, there is so much archealogical evidence that the events of the Bible are true! I can give you website references to some, if you want!

Rubbish.
There is NO evidence for ANY of the Gospel events.

Come on then - PRODUCE this "archealogical[sic] evidence."
NOT a Christian web site which CLAIMS evidence exists.

There is so much evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ, it would hold to be true even in the modern court of law.

Rubbish.
There is NO evidence for the resurrection at all.
None. Nada. Zip. Zero.

If you really believe this nonsense - PRODUCE this evidence.

Iasion

[Cathar1950]

GreenLight311 wrote:

While the Bible has been rewritten many times, it remains one of the most reliable and complete historical documents in human history.

Who told you that?
They, the writers, were very biased.

most reliable and complete historical documents

That doesn't even happen on the news today. FOX is a good example.

Quote:
Also, the errors that ARE in the Bible are stupid LITTLE errors like maybe a number conflict or a tense conflict - nothing big that would go against the consistency or truth of Christian teaching.

That is why they keep working it trying to make it consistent. Leave a little out here add some there. There are many varied Christians teachings. They are not consistent or clear.

Quote:
As for proof, there is so much archealogical evidence that the events of the Bible are true! I can give you website references to some, if you want!

You must be reading some old archaeology books. There maybe events that happened in the Bible but they were not always the only interpretation or true. I am always hearing some preacher saying "something was found and thus proving the Bible true. They found Troy but did Archelaus really have just one spot on his heal that was weak. Do you belive all the gods that they mentioned?
Where did you get 1.5 %? Who with what twisted statistics made that up?

[AlAyeti]

For all of secualr anti-Christiism to exist, evolution has to be defended and defended and defended.

0 x 1 = what the followers of evolution believe.

Their only hatred is for those that hold out the Biblical assertions as facts. Where are the thousands of websites denigrating any other religion by an athieism/evolutionary attack?

Yet, the Bible clearly mentions historic places and times and peoples.

Now, dinosuars are birds and not lizarsd (like we were taught for decades) at least that is how "another version" of it goes. And how many versions of evolution is there? How many "theories?"

Some of those ape-men walking their way to uprightness were frauds.

Revision, revision revision.

Whereas the Bible in all of its "translations" has still the same God and the same Son of God. The same past and the same future, that we can all see running to its Biblical conclusion.

We're "evolving" backwards.

[Cathar1950]

Jose wrote:

There is otherwise no evidence from God's Creation that it was created as the bible says (or as any other holy book says--and they are not all the same).

I wanted to say that.
It is a debate between science and faith(mostly blind or deluded).
Their agenda(creationist) is to prove the bible right and then their faith will not be in vain. It seems backwards. Maybe AlAyeti is right when speaking for himself

We're "evolving" backwards

.
axeplayer wrote:

We can definitely see that Evolution #6 worked fine, but they're still lacking any evidence to support their (underlying; as sinners) desire to (putting it bluntly here) hide from our Creator and their responsibilities as part of the created...If ... "God" created the universe then, logically, nothing in life is more important than finding out just who that God is and why we were created. But many persons would prefer to hide from this inconvenient reality

(bold italics added)
Notice to loaded words? And AlAyeti claims Christians are being attacted
and denigrated.
ENIGMA

(Claim: Evolution cannot explain consciousness or free will.)

Creationism cannot explain the price of tea in China, so what's your point?

Seriously, though, the concepts of conciousness and free will are outside the scope of evolutionary theory. Currently, we honestly don't know about how those work (or in the case of free will if they really do work).

I think adaptation explains it very well(conciousness) and Quantum Mechanics( free will).
AlAyeti wote:

0 x 1 = what the followers of evolution believe.

Your the only one who belives that, what ever it means.

Their only hatred is for those that hold out the Biblical assertions as facts. Where are the thousands of websites denigrating any other religion by an athieism/evolutionary attack?

(bold italics added)
The other Religions are not trying to teach our kids crap. Don't speak for all Christians.

Now, dinosuars are birds and not lizarsd (like we were taught for decades) at least that is how "another version" of it goes. And how many versions of evolution is there? How many "theories?"

They are bird like is one of the ideas. Science keeps adapting. It is it's nature. It dosn't change as fast as a Bible Beliver changes verses to keep from falling in holes.

Some of those ape-men walking their way to uprightness were frauds.

Yes some where so is much of the Bible. But when is the last time you read a science book written before 1950 using the latest evidence?.

Revision, revision revision.

You should feel right at home because that is just how the Bible was written. When they were not making it up or making copy errors. Then there is translations.

Whereas the Bible in all of its "translations" has still the same God and the same Son of God. The same past and the same future, that we can all see running to its Biblical conclusion.

No it dosn't, there are more opinions and interpretations on the Bible, God, and Jesus then you got teeth.

We're "evolving" backwards.

Yes you are.

[maynard]

hence forth i ask the question where did the first cell come

and my answer is from another web site so i cant say that it is my version, but it is my belief.

During the first billion years on earth, there was little free oxygen and no ozone to absorb UV radiation from the sun. Yet, simple organic molecules were formed under such harsh conditions. Laboratory experiments simulating the primitive earth have confirmed that organic molecules could have been formed. When gases such as CO2, CH4, NH3, and H2 were heated with water and energized by electrical discharge or by UV radiation, they reacted and formed small organic molecules. More importantly, the organic molecules that were crucial to life (amino acids, nucleotides, sugars, and fatty acids) were also generated.

there is a veiw on it may not be the veiw you want, but it is nontheless a veiw. even though i cant say that i understand all of this, being 16 i can still make since of what they are saying, and that is that cells could have been created through some certian circumstances. and agian these are "lab" experiments simulating on what we think it was like. we wern't there so we don't know what it was like.

if you would like to visit the site that i got the information from go to: http://library.thinkquest.org/C004535/o ... cells.html

[Cathar1950]

It looks and sounds about right to me.
Sure rub it in your only 16.
Asking where the first cell came from is like asking where anything came from only it is easy to answer. The building blocks are all over water, carbon and "organic" material are all over the universe last I heard and it suprised even scientist.
It took two suns exploding to make our sun and all the elements we need.
The universe is a good place. Except black holes.

[Jose]

Welcome, maynard! If you stick around here long enough, you can teach us some things.

As for the first cell, I suspect that there were "several" steps between the production of organic molecules and their assembly into self-replicating entities, and then a few more before they could be called "cells." Give it a billion years or so. It sure would be fun if we knew all of the details. Right now, we have a few dots to connect, but not quite enough to get a really good picture.

There is otherwise no evidence from God's Creation that it was created as the bible says (or as any other holy book says--and they are not all the same).

I wanted to say that.
It is a debate between science and faith(mostly blind or deluded).
Their agenda(creationist) is to prove the bible right and then their faith will not be in vain. It seems backwards. Maybe AlAyeti is right when speaking for himself:

We're "evolving" backwards

hee hee

Their only hatred is for those that hold out the Biblical assertions as facts. Where are the thousands of websites denigrating any other religion by an athieism/evolutionary attack?

Yet, the Bible clearly mentions historic places and times and peoples.

Now, dinosuars are birds and not lizarsd (like we were taught for decades) at least that is how "another version" of it goes. And how many versions of evolution is there? How many "theories?"

Oh, Al... I get emails all the time from Hindus who explain why evolution can't be right. It turns out that they use different logic than do Christian creationists, which is why the Christian types tend to act as if they don't exist. You might, however, ask your question the other way: why are there so many websites and books denigrating evolution? It's only science! Why should Christians think that a mere scientific finding can destroy their entire religion? Is it really that weak?

Now, you might want to read up on what science is, and how it works. Here's a kind of analogy: think of the maps of the Americas, or of Africa, that early European explorers made. They were rather inaccurate. As more information was obtained, people made new maps that were more accurate. Does this mean that map makers are frauds? Did the first guys intentionally lie to us? Is it unethical for them to make new maps when they get new information? Science works the same way.

You could easily resolve your problem with lizards, dinosaurs, and birds by looking up a current phylogeny. Lizards, as we know them today, branched off from the rest of the dinosaurian lineage fairly early. Lots of other lineages branched off, too. Most of 'em went extinct when the Chixulub meteor hit, but some of the lizards made it, and some of the smaller velociraptor types made it--the ones with the feathers and bird-like behaviors.

No, dinosaurs were not birds. Birds are the descendents of one branch of them. Lizards are descendents of another branch. Early paleontologists based their ThunderLizard ideas on the similarities between the dino fossils they had and the skeletons of extant lizards. They did pretty well. Now we have more data, so we can make our descriptions more precise, with lots more detail.

It's funny, though...somehow, you seem to imply that describing fossils, and linking them to the genetic data, is somehow "anti-Christian." It's not, you know. It's just describing what exists in the world. Christianity describes what exists in a wholly intangible theological concept. There are some bits of historical anchoring to the bible, but they don't make the intangibles physical. We're dealing with entirely different things here.