Creation vs Evolution

[crossroad]

So why did God kill of the dinosaurs ?

Animals go extinct every day.

Why are Creationists always so insecure, why can't there be a God and evolution ?

Insecure? That's like saying all Evolutionists are communists. Which they are not. Concerning God and evolution - God can use any method He chooses, but I don't think He uses macro-evolution.

[InsaneApache]

I read part of one of those links. Why do creationists insist on using terms such as these.

Many evolutionists believe

Evolution is not a belief system. (However creationism is).

This is akin to people of faiths insisting that atheism is a belief that God does not exist.

Why does this blind spot exist?

[crossroad]

I read part of one of those links. Why do creationists insist on using terms such as these.

Many evolutionists believe

Evolution is not a belief system. (However creationism is).

This is akin to people of faiths insisting that atheism is a belief that God does not exist.

Why does this blind spot exist?

Here is a couple of the difinitions of Religion. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.

Religion:
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

If you see a crime occur, you know it happened.
If you hear the evidence in a court room, you believe it happened based on the evidence.

[InsaneApache]

Here is a couple of the difinitions of Religion. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.

Religion:
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

If you see a crime occur, you know it happened.
If you hear the evidence in a court room, you believe it happened based on the evidence.

So you need evidence to believe something then. So what evidence do you have that:

1 God exists.

2 That God greated the universe.

3 That evolution is a myth.



---------------------------------------------------------------

Ive been a Pastafarian ever since His Noodleness showed me the divine path of Truth.

May the sauce be with you.

[rory_20_uk]

The definition of belief clearly ommits evidence as a requirement.

But surely then atheism is a belief, as again there is no cast iron evidence to support it.

[crossroad]

So you need evidence to believe something then. So what evidence do you have that:

1 God exists.

2 That God greated the universe.

3 That evolution is a myth.

1 The Universe. Jesus Christ. The Bible. The improbiblity of a human eye evolving... to mention a few.

2 Read the first post.

3 Fossil record, geochronometers, huge holes in the theory... to mention a few.

[Papewaio]

Here is a couple of the difinitions of Religion. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.

Religion:
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

You do realise that using that definition so broadly to imply that evolution is a religion... it would also mean that every 15 year old boy is a zealot of masturbation and that the worlds largest institution of worship would be the surfing of porn...

[Ser Clegane]

God can use any method He chooses, but I don't think He uses macro-evolution.

So, what method do you think "he" uses?

[crossroad]

So, what method do you think "he" uses?

He uses any method He wants. Didn't I just say that?
I would not begin to put Him a my own little box of explaination.

[rory_20_uk]

Hmm. So basically the evidence of God bieng in control is non existent - but that's OK as he's so great none is required!

[_Martyr_]

I feel the need to point out that the Spaghetti Monster does not take too kindly to this false God you speak of that supposedly created the universe... if you want to find the truth, look here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

[Lemur]

Martyr, I had no idea you were a Pastafarian.

Crossroads, I'm curious -- if you accept that evolution occurs on the micro-level, what leads you to believe that the same rules to not apply to more complex organisms?

[_Martyr_]

Ive been a Pastafarian ever since His Noodleness showed me the divine path of Truth.

[crossroad]

Martyr, I had no idea you were a Pastafarian.

Crossroads, I'm curious -- if you accept that evolution occurs on the micro-level, what leads you to believe that the same rules to not apply to more complex organisms?

I used the word micro for your benefit, in reference to adaptation. The fossil record is void of evidence of one species evolving into another.

[crossroad]

Hmm. So basically the evidence of God bieng in control is non existent - but that's OK as he's so great none is required!

Its called permissive will.

[Ser Clegane]

He uses any method He wants. Didn't I just say that?
I would not begin to put Him a my own little box of explaination.

Actually you are already "putting Him in a box" by saying that he certainly didn't use "macro-evolution".
Interestingly you dismiss evolution (for which you say no evidence exists) but apparently accept any other way of "creation" that God might have chosen, although you have not evidence for that either.

The improbiblity of a human eye evolving...

So - God using macroevolution to "develop" the human eye is improbable, while God using the "human-eye-appears-out-of-thin-air"-method is more likely...

It is amazing how hardcore-creationists apparently dismiss evolution not because it would be in conflict with the existance of God, but rather because it is not in conflict with the non-existance of God.

[Duke of Gloucester]

It is amazing how hardcore-creationists apparently dismiss evolution not because it would be in conflict with the existance of God, but rather because it is not in conflict with the non-existance of God.

Very true. Creationist also tend to be biblical fundamentalists so see evolution as a threat to scripture. They are encouraged in this by non-scientists who claim that evolution is proved so the bible must be wrong and by some scientists who argue that evolution [B]supports/B] the non-existance of God.

[Ser Clegane]

They are encouraged in this by non-scientists who claim that evolution is proved so the bible must be wrong and by some scientists who argue that evolution [b]supports/B] the non-existance of God.

Good point - dogmatic thinking (regardless of its nature) rarely leads to enlightenment.

[Divinus Arma]

So - God using macroevolution to "develop" the human eye is improbable, while God using the "human-eye-appears-out-of-thin-air"-method is more likely...

Exactly. Crap-appears-out-of-nothing method. Like a damn magician. I think science and evolutiuon would be MORE bad ass for the Lord! Any second rate God can pull a rabbit out his hat. This one happens to take a billion years and 40 versions to do it! lolol! (What would we do without proof of the saber tooth jackrabbit?)

It is amazing how hardcore-creationists apparently dismiss evolution not because it would be in conflict with the existance of God, but rather because it is not in conflict with the non-existance of God.

ya.what he said. cause the earth was born yesterday from a divine fart.

[doc_bean]

Animals go extinct every day.

So why did God create them if only to go extinct ? Wouldn't you say, some species surviving and others not is a sign of one species being better adapted than another ? Say, isn't this aking to evolution theory ?

Insecure? That's like saying all Evolutionists are communists. Which they are not. Concerning God and evolution - God can use any method He chooses, but I don't think He uses macro-evolution.

Creationism is a reaction towards evolution theory, which is a scientific theory, creationism is religious dogma. Not accepting evolution (as a viable THEORY at least, and really, as the best theory we have right now) is indeed similar to not believing in gravity, as Pape pointed out already.

Why do you want evolutionists do defend themselves btw, if creationism is that great explain to me what proof you have, don't point out the 'problems' with evolution, but give clear evidence pointing towards creation, say, all life having started around the same period would have been a good one, or all mammals having emerged during the same period even.

The burden of proof is upon the one who challenges the common paradigm.

[crossroad]

So why did God create them if only to go extinct ? Wouldn't you say, some species surviving and others not is a sign of one species being better adapted than another ? Say, isn't this aking to evolution theory ?.

Actually, that's survival of the fittest, the natural progression of nature. Some species go extinct. Are you saying death is a way of advancement? Strange concept unless you are a Christian. But we can save that debate for another Thread.

Creationism is a reaction towards evolution theory, which is a scientific theory, creationism is religious dogma. Not accepting evolution (as a viable THEORY at least, and really, as the best theory we have right now) is indeed similar to not believing in gravity, as Pape pointed out already.

Actually, evolution is a reaction to creation, which obviously was the first belief. The Bible came before Origin of the Species. Have you looked up the word Theory? Theory does not mean Proven Fact.

Why do you want evolutionists do defend themselves btw, if creationism is that great explain to me what proof you have, don't point out the 'problems' with evolution, but give clear evidence pointing towards creation, say, all life having started around the same period would have been a good one, or all mammals having emerged during the same period even.

The burden of proof is upon the one who challenges the common paradigm.

Go back and read the beginning of this thread. I simply said I was a creationist. It is I who am having to defend myself by the onslot of evolution propaganda. Look up geochronometer. The majority of them suggest a young earth.

[doc_bean]

Actually, that's survival of the fittest, the natural progression of nature. Some species go extinct. Are you saying death is a way of advancement? Strange concept unless you are a Christian. But we can save that debate for another Thread.

So all creatures that live and have ever lived have been created and some creatures go extinct, so in the end there will only be one creature left ? Or just a few ? Now, does that mean there were humans when there were dinosaurs ? because that seems to be what you're implying here....

Actually, evolution is a reaction to creation,

Not really, evolution was a progression of scientific theory at the time, creation wasn't really taken into account. That's like saying the 'round earth' theory is a reaction to the flat earth belief. It isn't, one was a belief, not based on evidence, the other is a scientific theory, based on observation.

which obviously was the first belief. The Bible came before Origin of the Species. Have you looked up the word Theory? Theory does not mean Proven Fact.

No a scientific theory is a (mathematical) model of observed facts, based on extrapolation of certain observation a theory is formed to predict future observations. The theory that best predicts observations is considered the best, and if it's really good it can be accepted as truth (see gravity).

Go back and read the beginning of this thread. I simply said I was a creationist. It is I who am having to defend myself by the onslot of evolution propaganda. Look up geochronometer. The majority of them suggest a young earth.

You're defending yourself, or trying to, by attacking the opposing theory, it doesn't work that way. you have to prove why your theory is good or better, not (just) by pointing out the faults in the other theory but by providing solutions to the existing problems or even unexplained phenomena. Creationism has more holes than evolution, which we will gladly point out (and can) because we're protecting the established scientific theory. A new theory has little to no use if it doesn't at least explain everything the previous one could.

BTW if God could create the universe how he wanted, why wouldn't he have done it through evolution ? Can you accept the *possibility* of God AND evolution ?

[KafirChobee]

Actually, that's survival of the fittest, the natural progression of nature. Some species go extinct. Are you saying death is a way of advancement? Strange concept unless you are a Christian. But we can save that debate for another Thread.

Actually, evolution is a reaction to creation, which obviously was the first belief. The Bible came before Origin of the Species. Have you looked up the word Theory? Theory does not mean Proven Fact.

Go back and read the beginning of this thread. I simply said I was a creationist. It is I who am having to defend myself by the onslot of evolution propaganda. Look up geochronometer. The majority of them suggest a young earth.

CROSSROAD, first you use an evolutionary concept - "survival of the fittest". The primary theory expounded by Darwin; that and natural selection.

Second, you attempt to claim that evolutionists are re-acting to creationism. In fact, if you knew anything about Darwin as a man, you would know that he was a very devote Christian. That his observations, studies, and ultimate theories bothered him - however, he adjusted his faith to the realization that no man can fully know, comprehend, or understand the workings of God - or why he allowed evolution to progress beyond the dinasours.

Then you come to the time or measure of earth's, nay the universes existance. First you said it might be 60billion years, but once someone pointed out that the creationists believe it is 6,000 years you back it down to maybe 100,000.

A young earth? Well, if 3billion years is young - yes. It is younger than the universe.

I hold in part, with Doc Bean though. However for me a true Christian has no difficulty resolving evolution with their beliefs. Where as one that is in doubt feels it imparative to justify that the bible be taken verbatim - attempting to deny that God is wiser than they are.

BTW, which God? The old one or the new one?

*edited for spelling and some grammar - some.