Why Creationism over Evolution? Bring on the arguments

[Autodidact]

Creationism stands because it serves its purpose...

And what is that?

Scientists use their mind so much they seem to forget to learn about the mind itself...

You're not familiar with neuroscience?

Therefore creationism doesn't stand on just scientific fact and experiments it also stands on "belief" and "gut feelings". Silly? Of course. But you have to remember that the creation of the universe and life as we know it isn't something that can be tested because it is not recurring.

1. The creation of the universe and life have nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
2. So you think the sciences of geology, cosmology and astronomy are worthless?
3. Do you know anything at all about how science works?

So, in a way, creationism stands on one more leg than evolution...

If by "creationism" we mean YEC, then it stands on no legs. Not only does it not stand on scientific facts, the evidence actually disproves it.

Evolutionists love to point the finger at the creationists and laugh saying, "You have absolutely no reason to believe in that!" but fail to realize that they don't have any reason to believe in evolution either...

1. There is no such thing as an evolutionist. The word you are looking for is "biologist."
2. Not no reason, just no good reason.
3. If by no reason you mean the entire body of scientific knowledge in the field of biology, then, right, no reason.

Evolution and/or creationism can only be proven or disproven over vaste amounts of time and even by the time evolution is finally capable of being proven it's highly unlikely anyone will be one step closer to knowing if creationism is valid.

Science is not about proof. It's about evidence. The world is not just divided into two categories: absolute certainly and no clue. Most information is in between, known with some degree of certainty. That includes all of science. So if we don't know that the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is correct, then we don't know anything from science, because it has a very high degree of scientific certainty.

So, please, evolutionists stop trying to convince everyone that the evolution THEORY is not a theory...

Do you know what the word "theory" means in science? Evolution IS a theory. That means it's a complete explanation of an important scientific question, well supported by the evidence, that can predict and explain what we observe in the world.

People choose creationism over evolution because it fits *their* facts better. People pick and choose their own axioms every day and that's where these debates come in to play.

No, it doesn't. It doesn't fit the facts. Creationists make up the facts to fit their dogma. Some people make up axioms; that doesn't make them correct, workable, or useful. ToE rests on the same axioms as the rest of science. Do you reject all of science?

 

[Sunstone]

...it is adaptation which is LIMITED and produces no new species.

Just out of curiosity, how would you define a "species".

 

[AndRome]

As I did A quick scan I didn't see much in responce to the original Question of why creationist can believe this. I saw alot of philosophical reasons to believe but not actual scientific reasons behind the theory.

 

[AndRome]

There are few reasons for this most Christians are very uneducated on both the Bible and science.

 

[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?

1. I've told you this before, Hope. Evolution is NOT the theory that there is no God. That is called atheism. Evolution is a specific scientific theory in a specific field of science, biology, and it answers only one question: how did we come to have so many different species of organisms. It has no bearing on the question of whether there is a God. It also tells us nothing about the rest of the universe, only about organisms here on earth.
2. There are many good reasons to be moral, whether or not we are animals.
3. It's a good thing people who do believe in God never murder or rape other people, or the world would be a really dangerous place. Did you know that, per capita, there are many more Christians in prisons in the U.S. than atheists? Maybe you don't need to worry about this so much. Can you not think of any reason to avoid hurting other people, other than that God told you not to?
4. Things aren't true or false because of what we would like to be true or false.

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

Which is why thousands of God-loving Christians never marched across Europe, raping, killing and pillaging everyone in their path, and completely explains why when Christians were in power in Europe, they never thought about torturing thousands of people to confess to being witches, and killing them in brutal and bizarre ways. It also explains why Christians have been so kind to Jews, protecting and defending them, and respecting their rights. It must have been their sincere belief in God.

 

[Autodidact]

Is creationism a theory?

Only in the colloquial, not 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.

I don't get you. Why not?

I already explained why humans have inherent worth-----because we are created in the image of God. God is the ultimate Being of Worth, and if we are created in His image, then we are also beings of worth.

Well, I think we're of worth, and I don't believe in God.

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

I do to me and to other people, probably not to a cockroach. Since I'm a person, this doesn't bother me. I guess I would say that I don't have a psychological need to be inherently superior to a cockroach.

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.

The Theory of Evolution (ToE) is not a theory of morality; it's a theory of biology. I can accept scientific truth without throwing my ethics out the window. Have you ever noticed that religious people are NOT more moral than non-religious people? Why do you think that is?

 

[AndRome]

I'm not super smart but I have done my research on both sides (since I went to public school) and read various books buy Creationist and Evolutionist who by their own research have lead them to believe that life could not have arisen by chance. They refer usually to the complexity in life and nature resemble that of a creativity of a mind.
From What I can gather those actual scientist are rarely heard if ever but their words have spoken in every field of science.
We must remember that when the Theory of evolution arose most the churches in the world ignored is findings and insisted that God doesnot need to be defended and so a "Blind faith" so to speak arose. Without ever answering this new world veiw the educated people began to mock the church as having no reason.
It has taken some time but research has be gathered together to suggest that evolution might not be as solid as some would like to think.
Remember it is not only polically in correct to be a Strong Bible believing Christian but even more so to be a creationist but that doesnot mean their might not be some truth in their findings.The scienctist who takes this stand will be taking a big chances against his career and friends which might possibly explaim why more scientist dont speak out .

 

[AndRome]

I do not have much time but I would like to say a few things and maybe latter I can expound. There are two ways for the Creationist:
1) Refute evotion buy destroying its pillors In which if proven the whole system will fail.
2) Reveiw certian truths in science that can most probably com from a God.

The thing about sience is that it only gives us probability not absolute facts.

 

[Random]

I'm not super smart but I have done my research on both sides (since I went to public school) and read various books buy Creationist and Evolutionist who by their own research have lead them to believe that life could not have arisen by chance. They refer usually to the complexity in life and nature resemble that of a creativity of a mind.
From What I can gather those actual scientist are rarely heard if ever but their words have spoken in every field of science.
We must remember that when the Theory of evolution arose most the churches in the world ignored is findings and insisted that God doesnot need to be defended and so a "Blind faith" so to speak arose. Without ever answering this new world veiw the educated people began to mock the church as having no reason.
It has taken some time but research has be gathered together to suggest that evolution might not be as solid as some would like to think.
Remember it is not only polically in correct to be a Strong Bible believing Christian but even more so to be a creationist but that doesnot mean their might not be some truth in their findings.The scienctist who takes this stand will be taking a big chances against his career and friends which might possibly explaim why more scientist dont speak out .

You make some good points here, despite the typos and spelling errors. Have some Furbals, Bible-thumper.

 

[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. 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.

There is no such thing as an evolutionist. The people who figured out, understand, develop and rely on the Theory of Evolution (ToE) are biologists. The reason that all modern biologists accept and use the theory is that the evidence in fact does support it. Not proof, evidence. It has nothing to do with the "residue of the big bang," which is cosmology, an entirely different field. No, it can't truly be proven; nothing in science can. But it can reach a very high degree of certainty, which it has, because of the evidence that supports it. Are you familiar with what that evidence is?

So you think there is no point in doing science about life, animals, plants, rocks, the earth, the solar system, the stars, or anything else that has been here longer than us? It's impossible to figure anything out about any of those things?

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.

Exactly correct. In addition, there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that He did.

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. All of knowledge is not divided into things we can know with absolute certainty (math) and things we have no clue about. Science is about everything in betweeen: things we can safely rely on with a high degree of certainty. If you reject all empiricism, all scientific progress, then you are throwing out a lot of progress there.

 

[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.

Only if you reject the possibility of scientific knowledge.

 

[Autodidact]

"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.

No, it isn't. The theory of evolution is part of biology, which is about organisms. The Big Bang is cosmology, an entirely different field. You can believe that God poofed the entire universe into existence, sparked the first life, and still accept the theory of evolution, which only tells you about diversity of species.
And yes, making a better ear of corn through hybridization is evolution. Insects that develop resistance to insecticides evolve this capability. Are you saying that we have not observed new species coming into existence? Because biologists have observed exactly that, both in the lab and the field.

 

[Autodidact]

I'm not super smart but I have done my research on both sides (since I went to public school) and read various books buy Creationist and Evolutionist who by their own research have lead them to believe that life could not have arisen by chance. They refer usually to the complexity in life and nature resemble that of a creativity of a mind.

That may or may not be, but has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, so I think you need to do a little more research. Do you know what the ToE actually says?

From What I can gather those actual scientist are rarely heard if ever but their words have spoken in every field of science.
We must remember that when the Theory of evolution arose most the churches in the world ignored is findings and insisted that God doesnot need to be defended and so a "Blind faith" so to speak arose. Without ever answering this new world veiw the educated people began to mock the church as having no reason.
It has taken some time but research has be gathered together to suggest that evolution might not be as solid as some would like to think.
Remember it is not only polically in correct to be a Strong Bible believing Christian but even more so to be a creationist but that doesnot mean their might not be some truth in their findings.The scienctist who takes this stand will be taking a big chances against his career and friends which might possibly explaim why more scientist dont speak out .

Baloney. The scientist who disproved the ToE would win a Nobel prize.

 

[Autodidact]

I do not have much time but I would like to say a few things and maybe latter I can expound. There are two ways for the Creationist:
1) Refute evotion buy destroying its pillors In which if proven the whole system will fail.
2) Reveiw certian truths in science that can most probably com from a God.

The thing about sience is that it only gives us probability not absolute facts.

Exactly. Does that mean science is worthless?

What does 2) have to do with ToE?

 

[Evolution_Not]

you all do have search engines?
since I am not allowed to post urls yet search "cosmic evolution"

You claim "Evolution" only pertains to biology or life. But the general narative it that it
rained on the rocks for millions of years" and that life came from non life.
Everything can be reduced to particle science unless you believe life has no particles.
From there we have to evolve to Elements, molecules and chemical compounds.
Everything including life and planets are made from these. Biological evolution is the
most commonly discussed but it is only part of evolution. But perhaps you are of the
belief that it all plopped into existance one day like magic?

 

[AndRome]

Things against evolution:

1) the simple cell theory. If the first cell could not have come together by chance then life could not have start by chance. The simple cell in Darwins day was thought of as a jelly like substance. BUt in mordern times we now know that the simplist cells are amazingly complex.

I may get the figures wrong because I am going by memory (if you want my sources let me know)but it goes something like this:
a) The cell begins with Amino acids "building blockes of life" There are needed at least 12 amino to form a protien
b) You then need at the mininume 2000 protiens to form a cell.
c) you at the same time need the DNA to tell the protien what to become.

There is allot more stuff needed for a simple cell but these figures are enough to prove my point.

The Amino acids come in two forms "left" and "right" handed. Left handed kills life and right builds life. In physics the Law of Equalibrium will show that these two substances will be equally mixed. So it will take some faith to believe that in the "premortal soup" only right handed some how got seperated form the left some how. But even one left handed Amino Acid will destory life.

But lets say some how this happened, you then need it to happen 2000 times at the same spot, at the same moment with a very small window of oppertunity.

The DNA is evidence all by itself. By Definition DNA is a language that consists of 4 letters that gives imformation. A language always reflect a mind. A language is also a two way street. The DNA must first speak and the protien has to respond.

Now some will say that even if the odds are against this happening the amount of time will make it possible. This would be a good scapegoat if it were not for some mathmatians who calculated this and figured the odds

The Odds of all this happening is apparently 1 x 10 to the 153 power. Lets put this in perspective:
If you take all the atoms in the known universe it is 1 x 10 to the 47 power.
if you take every second from a 4 billion year old earth it is 1 x 10 to the 17 power.
Anything over 1 x 10 to the 50 power is considered impossible, absurb.

And this is only the first cell well we have not even discussed it spliting itself and aventually become all life.

There is alot more things against evolution but I hope next time to speak for creationist from a pure scientific viewpoint.

 

[AndRome]

Exactly. Does that mean science is worthless?

What does 2) have to do with ToE?

Science is not worthless
and 2) has to do with certian laws in physic that eliminate chance as a source for life which implys choice (in this case The choices of a creator as resembled by the choices of an artist or a Builder

 

[Autodidact]

You claim "Evolution" only pertains to biology or life. But the general narative it that it
rained on the rocks for millions of years" and that life came from non life.
Everything can be reduced to particle science unless you believe life has no particles.
From there we have to evolve to Elements, molecules and chemical compounds.
Everything including life and planets are made from these. Biological evolution is the
most commonly discussed but it is only part of evolution. But perhaps you are of the
belief that it all plopped into existance one day like magic?

You're getting closer. That's abiogenesis. Evolution isn't about the origin of life; it's only about diversity of species. That's quite enough for one theory, and is in fact one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time.

Yes, I'm aware of that belief; that's called creationism.

We can can also discuss abiogenesis, cosmology, geology, and all the rest of it, but it would be rather an unwieldy thread, don't you think?

 

[Valjean]

you all do have search engines?
since I am not allowed to post urls yet search "cosmic evolution"

You claim "Evolution" only pertains to biology or life. But the general narative it that it
rained on the rocks for millions of years" and that life came from non life.
Everything can be reduced to particle science unless you believe life has no particles.
From there we have to evolve to Elements, molecules and chemical compounds.
Everything including life and planets are made from these. Biological evolution is the
most commonly discussed but it is only part of evolution. But perhaps you are of the
belief that it all plopped into existance one day like magic?

The TOE begins with an already existing terrestrial geology, chemistry, meteorology, &c. It does not rely on theoretical cosmology. An already existing planet is axiomatic.