The Creation Debate: What have you read?

[English assassin]

Meh, I hate it when authors ressurect dead heroes in the sequel to cash in on the succes. Such a cliché. Let me guess, next you'll tell me that there's also a Darth Vader act where the two main protagonists turn out to be father and son, right? And that only the father knew all this time?

Couple that with a deus ex machina ending and you've just about got it.

Oh, and did we tell you about all the prequels?

[macsen rufus]

Most of the bible; not Darwin but more recent writers on evolution (E O Wilson).

I'm afraid when it comes to Creationism, I can't help recalling that all serious creationists come from that part of the world that tried to legislate that pi=4. Nuff said, really....

[doc_bean]

Most of the bible; not Darwin but more recent writers on evolution (E O Wilson).

I'm afraid when it comes to Creationism, I can't help recalling that all serious creationists come from that part of the world that tried to legislate that pi=4. Nuff said, really....

Surely, they must have gone for pi=3 ??? Otherwise it would be total madness !!!

[English assassin]

Surely, they must have gone for pi=3 ??? Otherwise it would be total madness !!!

I must be missing something here...

[Marcellus]

I must be missing something here...

Wierdness.

[Kommodus]

I voted Gah! as that option is actually closest to the truth for me. My thoughts on the issue are complex and can't be described simply by saying "I support creationism" or "I support evolution".

I've read the entire Bible (and quite a few books about the Bible or the Christian faith). I've read literature espousing a wide range of faith-based viewpoints on the origins of the earth and life, from the extremely literal young-earth creationists to intelligent design theorists to theistic evolutionists. My roommate has a copy of "The Origin of Species," which I once picked up and attempted to read. Suffice it to say I didn't make it far - the dry and technical nature of it made it harder to get through than "Paradise Lost." I have read a fair amount of evolutionist literature, however, as well as books that simply assume evolution and draw conclusions from it.

One of my main conclusions from all of this is that the issue is quite complex, and the number of people that have any right to comment on it is far fewer than the number of those that do. Most evolutionists entertain a crude charicature of the views held by theists, and a gross unappreciation for the diversity of their views. Conversely, most literal creationists I meet have little understanding of the claims actually made by scientists, the diverse theories often grouped collectively under the word "evolution," or the arguments made in support of those theories. I myself am unqualified to comment on all but a few points - to accurately evaluate many of the arguments I've heard in favor of evolution (especially fossil evidence) I would need a good background in paleontology, geology, and biology, none of which I have. Never one to simply take a so-called expert's word for it, I choose instead to keep my mouth shut.

What do I support, then? I support people not boasting confidently as if they know something when they really have no idea. You evolutionists who deride believers as ignorant fools: do you really understand Darwin's theories and how they've been refined over the years? Are you able to explain why evolution is such an obvious, self-evident theory that every thinking person should accept it without doubt? If not, then leave the arguing to those who can, because you are only taking someone else's word for it. And you creationists that think you're well-informed because you saw a Ken Ham video and it made sense to you: did you double-check your facts and look for possible refutations to what you consider solid arguments? Did you find out what evolutionists actually claim from evolutionists themselves, or did you blindly accept the version of events from your primary source only? Be sure you do at least this much before you talk, lest you be easily refuted and made to look like a fool by someone wiser than you.

OK, I'll get down off my soap-box now, sorry about that.

[littlelostboy]

I've read a bit of The Origin of Species and suffice to say, never make it through the first few pages. But being a higher-level bio student in the cutthroat IB program, I've studied evolution, species adaptation, ecology and Darwin's theories intensely. I've to say that although I support Creationism, my views are a bit complex, I support evolution and at the same time support Creationism. I believe that God did not create all creatures at once but rather created the important few and from that on, allowed these creatures to evolve naturally. But at the same time, I believe He created all the creatures and some of them just died out after Noah's flood.

[crossroad]

Read/studied the Bible, have never read The Origin of Species. But you can't live in America without gaining a fair knowledge about evolution - school, Media, the Discovery Channel - evolution is pervasive.

As the creator of the Creation vs. Evolutions thread, I think I'm glad it was locked. Strange now to say, but I really never intended to get so wrapped up in that debate. Sure I was curious to see how people would react, but I never thought that my comment about the Big Bang would cause me to spend the rest of the thread defending Creation, the Bible, and a number of other issues that have nothing to do with science.

Oh well, had fun, hope those that were involved in the "controversy" that shut down the thread are ok, and hope the friendly debaters keep on posting.

Zain, thanks for the help. I pitty those who are your age who dare to debate against you!

[Tribesman]

I have read several versions of the Bible in their entirety , plus numerous texts that are no longer in the Bible , as well as texts from other religeons The reason I do not support creationism as it is put forward ...ie
AiG teaches that “facts” don’t speak for themselves, but must be interpreted. That is, there aren’t separate sets of “evidences” for evolution and creation—we all deal with the same evidence (we all live on the same earth, have the same fossils, observe the same animals, etc.). The difference lies in how we interpret what we study. The Bible—the “history book of the universe”—provides a reliable, eye-witness account of the beginning of all things, and can be trusted to tell the truth in all areas it touches on. Therefore, we are able to use it to help us make sense of this present world. When properly understood, the “evidence” confirms the biblical account.


is that the Bible is not a reliable eye witness account and cannot be trusted to tell the truth in all areas it touches on because it is contradictory , heavily altered and mis translated many times over .

[doc_bean]

Creation, the Bible, and a number of other issues that have nothing to do with science.

Mind if I put this in my sig ?

[-Silent-Pariya]

There is a very interesting debate about this in the Lion forums i beleive many of you might find of interest. http://www.clubsilence.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=180