Why Creationism over Evolution? Bring on the arguments

[meogi]

The point I'm trying to make is that nobody can prove either points of the argument. We are all mortal after all. It's all simply a matter of belief.

One problem, predictions. Having an idea that makes no predictions and having an idea that predicts what we observe have differing levels of credibility. (NOTE: I'm not saying we can predict evolution [seive, not ladder], but the 'small pieces of evidence' are predictable and observed.)

But you're right, how much do we really know about anything? Everything is belief... but beliefs are not equal in my opinion. The belief that I will wake up tomorrow is more reliable than the belief that I will not. At least until I pass through quite a bit more time. (Based upon observing other people and waking up at some point every time I've slept so far.)

 

[blueinchains]

Literal scripture belief on such things as the creation story, all things that are mutually exclusive with scientific propositions, i just want to see some of the justifications people have for believing them.

Never mind really, i felt this was going to flop and not get answered lol ..shame

People, I believe, justify their belief in fiat creation for the same reason that evolutionists justify their belief in evolution. Perception. And belief. There are valid arguments for both points, hence this thread and forum.

 

[UnTheist]

People, I believe, justify their belief in fiat creation for the same reason that evolutionists justify their belief in evolution. Perception. And belief. There are valid arguments for both points, hence this thread and forum.

Nope. Creationism has no evidence and does not follow the scientific method.

 

[camanintx]

I think this statement would ring the most true for me. Although, as a Christian, I would go with creationism as part of the belief system.

I see alot of evolutionists, atheists and the such state matter of factually that evolution is the only way and they think they got the evidence to proof it. The proof being the pictures of the "residue of the big bang" and the "knowledge" of how old fossils are (and among other things) and all of those small pieces of "evidence" can't truely be proven. Was anybody there during the Big Bang? Was anybody around long enough to witness the evolution of Earth's speices? No they weren't.

Of course, logically, I can't say I would know the same about creationism. No one was around when God just went *click* and created everything.

The point I'm trying to make is that nobody can prove either points of the argument. We are all mortal after all. It's all simply a matter of belief.

You are right, ideas like the big bang and universal common descent cannot be proven and more than genesis and the flood because, as you said, we were not there.
But evolution through natural selection has been proven through direct observation. Has anyone observed a new organism spring into existence out of nowhere? The idea that every organism shares a common ancestor may only be theory, but it is derived from the same principles which explain why bacteria become resistant to antibiotics also explains why all life on Earth share certain characteristics.

 

[Daquine]

You are right, ideas like the big bang and universal common descent cannot be proven and more than genesis and the flood because, as you said, we were not there.
But evolution through natural selection has been proven through direct observation. Has anyone observed a new organism spring into existence out of nowhere? The idea that every organism shares a common ancestor may only be theory, but it is derived from the same principles which explain why bacteria become resistant to antibiotics also explains why all life on Earth share certain characteristics.

I agree that evolution is there, as you noted in your example of bacteria and antibacteria. And of course, we notice variations on a single species of creatures like cats. Lions, tigers, mtn lions (aka cougars) are an example. They all adapt to the environment they live in.

I've come to one particular theory of the coexistance of faith of a higher power and evolution. The theory is God created everything we see, and has given His creatures, (us humans and all the other animals of the earth) the ability to adapt to their surroundings in an evolutionary sense.

 

[Super Universe]

Creationism over evolution?

They are both in play.

 

[Autodidact]

I would substitute the words "self importance" with "self worth." In a godless, evolutionary universe, the human has neither importance nor inherent worth, so anything goes: murder, rape, torture, etc. After all, if we are only animals, why should we act any differently than animals?

Couple of important points, Hope.
1. The theory of evolution (ToE) is NOT the theory that there is no God. It is a scientific theory about how species originate. No scientific theory has anything to say about the existence of God, Which is outside the scope of scientific inquiry.
2. ToE is not a theory about the universe, only about diversity of species.
3. This is called the naturalistic fallacy. Understanding the truth about how different species come to be does not tell us anything about how we should act. Morals do not come from natural science.

Whereas, humans who are created in the image of God have an inherent worth that makes murder, rape, torture, etc. detestably evil and wrong.

I would take issue with this, since God commands his followers to do all these things, and they do, on a regular basis.

Evolutionists have no fixed reference point from which to claim any evil act is actually evil. They have no true basis for saying humans deserve to be treated with respect, or that human life is valuable, when humans are merely a product of mindless chance.

ToE is not a life philosophy or basis for moral reasoning. It is a scientific theory about Biology. There is no such thing as an "Evolutionist" in the sense in which you are using the word here. The correct word is Biologist. Then there are those of us who accept scientific thinking about evolution and other things.

Speaking for myself, understanding the web of connection of all living things has caused me to become more compassionate, not less. Similarly, understanding how all people are fundamentally similar and related has helped me view all of us with greater compassion.

 

[Autodidact]

Is creationism a theory?

No, not in the scientific sense.

 

[Autodidact]

Sure. But if the universe has no intrinsic meaning, then trying to differentiate between love and hate is in itself a meaningless and pointless endeavor.

This is interesting philosophical territory, but has no bearing on ToE, which is Biology, not philosophy, and, in particular, has no bearing on the question of whether it is true or not.

I'll turn the question around on you----do you believe you have more worth than a cockroach? If so, why?

Good question. I have more worth to myself and to those who love me, perhaps more to some other human beings who relate to our common heritage, but no, I don't think that there is an objective measure out there somewhere on which I rate higher than a cockroach.

It if helps any, I see the great web of existence as more interrelated and dynamic.

If not, then what is the difference between someone stepping on a cockroach and killing it and pointing a gun at you and killing you? From an evolutionary standpoint, both actions are equally justifiable, because you cannot convincingly show that your life is more valuable than a cockroach's when you and the cockroach both evolved from the same primordial soup.

Do you see why it's nonsensical to talk about an evolutionary viewpoint on a moral question? It's analagous to, I don't know, a theological viewpoint on auto mechanics? See what I mean? Evolution isn't about morals, it's about biological diversity. Beyond that, I'll just say that morality in general is one of the most challenging areas of philosophy, and deserves another thread at least.

 

[Autodidact]

But then you get into relativism, where everyone has their own standard of meaning. You have no fixed point of reference by which to judge if it is actually meaningful or not.

I do not consider myself a moral relativist at all, and in fact once I get into arguments about it, usually find that Christians are much more relativist than me, for example arguing that infanticide is moral if God orders you to do it and the like. However, these are questions that derive from atheism vs. theism, not from ToE, which *starts broken record* is a scientific theory about the question of how we get different species.

 

[Autodidact]

I think this statement would ring the most true for me. Although, as a Christian, I would go with creationism as part of the belief system.

I see alot of evolutionists, atheists and the such state matter of factually that evolution is the only way and they think they got the evidence to proof it.

Evolution is not atheism. ToE is not the theory that there is no God. ToE is a scientific theory. Science is not about proof, it's about evidence. And ToE is extremely well-evidenced, which is why it is THE accepted theory in Biology.

The proof being the pictures of the "residue of the big bang" and the "knowledge" of how old fossils are (and among other things) and all of those small pieces of "evidence" can't truely be proven. Was anybody there during the Big Bang? Was anybody around long enough to witness the evolution of Earth's speices? No they weren't.

ToE is not about Big Bang or anything of the sort, and this sort of post demonstrates an utter ignorance of what ToE is and says, which is what I usually find among people who reject it. Does it make sense to you to reject a theory without knowing what it says? Actually there is a lot of evidence, and if you will stick around and read it, I will post it here in plain English. It will result in a very long thread, because there is so much of it.

You seem to think that science cannot learn about anything that happened in the past. Kind of limits the possibilities, doesn't it?

This argument cuts against yourself, unless you were there when Jesus allegedly rose from the dead. Somehow I think you'll suddenly be singing a different tune about what it takes to believe something that happened in the past.

Of course, logically, I can't say I would know the same about creationism. No one was around when God just went *click* and created everything.

Or didn't, as the case may be.

The point I'm trying to make is that nobody can prove either points of the argument. We are all mortal after all. It's all simply a matter of belief.

No. There is a world between, "We can't know or prove for certain," and "We have no idea, and anyone can believe whatever they want," and that world is called science. Science is for understanding and learning about ALL those things we can't prove or know for certain--but for pretty darn close. That's what ToE is about.

 

[Autodidact]

People, I believe, justify their belief in fiat creation for the same reason that evolutionists justify their belief in evolution. Perception. And belief. There are valid arguments for both points, hence this thread and forum.

Onlyif you reject the scientific method as a way of learning about the world. Odd that you would do that on a computer though.

 

[Autodidact]

I agree that evolution is there, as you noted in your example of bacteria and antibacteria. And of course, we notice variations on a single species of creatures like cats. Lions, tigers, mtn lions (aka cougars) are an example. They all adapt to the environment they live in.

I've come to one particular theory of the coexistance of faith of a higher power and evolution. The theory is God created everything we see, and has given His creatures, (us humans and all the other animals of the earth) the ability to adapt to their surroundings in an evolutionary sense.

Would you call yourself a Theistic Evolutionist then?

 

[Autodidact]

Ooh, Hope, I was just at the pediatrician's and thought of a great metaphor. O.K., God is the creator of all of us, right? We now know, which we did not 500 years ago, how babies come to be: sperm, egg, mitosis, meiosis, implantation, embryo, etc. etc. This "theory", or scientific explanation, is not the theory that God doesn't make babies, any more than the theory of evolution is the theory that God doesn't make species. If you believe there is a God, it's the scientific explanation for how He does it. (If you don't believe in God, it's the whole explanation.) It doesn't make sense to reject all this information about reproduction just because you believe that God creates us. In the same way, it doesn't make sense to reject the theory of evolution, which Biology considers as well established as Reproductive theory, just because you believe God is the Creator of all things, including species.

 

[Evolution_Not]

"Toe is not about big bang" Actually it is. Evolution has to have a starting point as does God which is pre-big bang. Cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, planetary evolution, chemical evolution, biologic evolution. If you only had one atom in the universe void of all other matter, where did
this one atom come from?

Makng a better ear of corn is not evolution.
Becoming resistant to an insecticide is not evolution, it is adaptation which is LIMITED and produces no new species.

 

[mingmty]

"Toe is not about big bang" Actually it is. Evolution has to have a starting point as does God which is pre-big bang. Cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, planetary evolution, chemical evolution, biologic evolution. If you only had one atom in the universe void of all other matter, where did
this one atom come from?

Makng a better ear of corn is not evolution.
Becoming resistant to an insecticide is not evolution, it is adaptation which is LIMITED and produces no new species.

You are confused my friend, there is a Theory of Evolution and there is the definition of the word "Evolution" which people like to use for a lot of things, like for example, the "evolution of US hisotry", which doesn't mean the US became a new specie.

You seem to overlook all the fossil records and the natural environment of isolated islands, which is from where the Theory of Evolution was proposed, this are evidence that support the theory. You are welcomed to scientifically support your theory too, but that's going to be a difficult task since the very principles of creationism don't follow the scientific method: Can't be tested, can't be denied or put in doubt, can't be supperpassed. Creationism IS NOT SCIENCE, and it will never be, you can believe whatever you want but please, o please, stop making fun of the Theory of Evolution by comparing it to something completely unscientific.

Interesting reading of what happens in isolated islands: Steatopygia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you want, explain us how Steatopygia originated (or ceased to exist) using your pseudo-theory.

 

[Evolution_Not]

Mingmty
Perhaps you should re read my post instead of dancing around my challenge.
You seem to be crediting me with things I did not state, and ignorant of what I did state.

 

[Willamena]

"Toe is not about big bang" Actually it is. Evolution has to have a starting point as does God which is pre-big bang. Cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, planetary evolution, chemical evolution, biologic evolution. If you only had one atom in the universe void of all other matter, where did
this one atom come from?

Makng a better ear of corn is not evolution.
Becoming resistant to an insecticide is not evolution, it is adaptation which is LIMITED and produces no new species.

The Theory of Evolution is not the idea of evolution extrapolatable into any old context. It is simply a theory of biology.

 

[Wandered Off]

"Toe is not about big bang" Actually it is. Evolution has to have a starting point as does God which is pre-big bang.

Willamena is right. ToE addresses change over time and not ultimate origins. Something has to already exist to evolve. How it came to exist is for another theory.

 

[Willamena]

Willamena is right. ToE addresses change over time and not ultimate origins. Something has to already exist to evolve. How it came to exist is for another theory.

Specifically, something alive.