Creation or Evolution?, Which do you believe in? Options

[Spirited Away]

1.  God gave us a more specific choice -- to follow Him, or to not and take the consequences.  Everything has consequences, even good things -- it's a known fact.  This was God's version.  He couldn't force anyone to follow Him, so He gave them a choice.  The whole idea is that He wanted us to willingly follow Him.  He knew there would be some that wouldn't, but they would face the consequences.  They made a choice to face the consequeces.

In Noah's time, it looked like all of the human race was evil.  Every last one - every last thought - every last action.  It got really dirty... worse than now by far.  In Genesis, it tells us that demon angels wre having sex with women... gross????!!! That's just an example of how bad it was.  There was no point in them existing if they wasn't anyone following God, the One who created all of them.  But he found Noah, and Noah was righteous and followed God, so he spared the human race.

In Egypt, God used Moses to warn the Pharoah of what was going to happened if they didn't listen and let His people go.  Pharoah had a choice, he chose, and faced the consequences of 10 plaques.

Hope that helped - sorry no one has explained that before.

2.   Okay, my bad - I misunderstood.  Creationism isn't what you call science but we can use science to back it up.

3.   God can't pour all of His knowledge into a book.  It's impossible.  It's like putting all textbooks into one.. plus another 50000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 more.  Infinity in a nutshell... 
Anyway, why would God want to tell us everything in the first place?  Because of that knowledge base, it would make more us equal to him (minus the supernatural powers and more). 

4.   I'm no professor, but I can back up Creationism with scientific evidence:

a. In order for the earth's magnetic field to be as strong as it is at this point in time (the strength of it slowly depletes), it would have been too strong -- it would have fried all life. Or, if it was strong enough to still support life, there would be no magnetic field because it would have depleted into nothing by today, and we wouldn't be here.

b. The Second Law of Thermodynamics can be stated in many different ways, e.g.:

That the entropy of the universe tends towards a maximum (in simple terms, entropy is a measure of disorder)

Usable energy is running out or

Information tends to get scrambled or

Order tends towards disorder or

A random jumble won’t organize itself or

ORDER FROM DISORDER????? It is like a book factory exploding and creating a dictionary.  Evolution contradicts scientific law.

c. Spontaneous generation is now been accepted as impossible. Louis Pasteur conducted an expreriment using flasks that proved this statement. Only biogenesis is possible.

d. "The various australopithecines (the group in which Lucy was said to belong) are, indeed, more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. Part of the basis of this acceptance has been the fact that even opposing investigators have found these large differences as they too, used techniques and research designs that were less biased by prior notions as to what the fossils might have been."

In layman's terms, this group is not part of the missing links to humans.

Tell me how men could have sculpted an entire missing link out of a single tooth?? or when they put together a man and a monkey's bones and called it a missing link?

e. The Flood... how else could a Grand Canyon like that be made?? That also is an explanation for the 150 million years of the missing geological time scale at that site.  It's a commonly accepted fact that the Grand Canyon is the most complete of all evidence of the geological time scale, but it is missing 150 million years (and that's not small).  The amount of pressure that the Flood would have gerenated explains the missing time peice.

f. Ok, so why have there HUGE amounts of drift-fish fossils (fish that float along with current) found all facing the exact same direction and in the exact same layer of the earth (indicating the same time). That means a MASSIVE current, a HUGE CURRENT was present.. not just some regular ocean.  Also fish fossils of fish with food still in their mouth have been found all over the Earth.  They say that fossils form over 1,000 years.... i don't think that a fish would take 1,000 years to halfway eat their meal. There had to be Sudden pressure, and a sudden death - a.k.a - the flood.

5.   I must have not articulated my arguement enough - we can't handle, or our brains are incapable of handling how God is.  He never came to be.  He always was.  If all of our faith has to be based on knowledge (and I agree that knowledge is power when it comes to things like this), how can we have faith one of our friends won't double cross us, for example - we know they won't because of their previous repeated actions of defending us and being our friend.  In the same way, we see the repeated previous (and continuing) work of God and have faith that He is who He is.

And by the way, knowledge can't explain anything - there are supernatural things happening in this world that no amount of knowledge can explain.

1. Still insufficient. God gave us free will and there is nothing "specific" about free will. My previous responses to this kind of answer is simple, free will is limitless. If we can only choose black and white and nothing in between, then our wills are NOT free as God promised. There is NOTHING God cannot do. To say that God "couldn't force anyone to follow Him" is to say that God is NOT all powerful as the Bible states. A contradiction to all claims of God's greatness. Humans make choices because of free will. To punish our choice is to punish using free will. To punish our using the Gift He bestowed is completely hypocritical.

... [if] there is only ONE thing to believe in... Hehe, what's the point of free will when there is only one thing to believe in? It is moot to give free will when there is ONE thing to "freely" believe in.

... you choose to believe in God, and you believe this constitute who you are, I choose to believe in the freedom to live fully and ethically and this constitue who I am. We are who we are and who we choose to be... THIS IS THE TRUE MEANING OF FREE WILL, and THIS is the gift that you say God has granted mankind!

Where is this proof of complete evil? Who can judge the human mind but the consequences of our actions and, perhaps in your p.o.v God? The only records of this absolute evil is in the Bible, which cannot be called facts but simply the "faith" or "belief" that all humans were evil.

2. Pseudoscience you mean. Most religious and non-religious intellects will agree. As I am someone who's rather unsure of her stance in this matter my argument will be weak, but I'm sure others can explain to you. I'll get to it in response to number 4.

3. Even with God's Almighty wisdom and great power, He doesn't know how or cannot put His knowledge in the Bible? So is God really Almighty or are Christians just making it up? I mean, so far, I've heard several things of what God cannot do. Why would God want to tell us everything? Because He loves us so much that He would share. What's wrong with being equals with God in knowledge? Wouldn't that make us better people to better serve God and love our Father with no doubts of His powers?

4.
a, b, c, d. What are you saying? I've heard the supposed claim that Earth's magnetic field cannot be over 10 millenias old, and if that's what you're saying, you've missed out on a lot of theories that have already refute that claim. If you're talking about the decay of Earth's magnetic field is evidence of Creation, that has too been refuted. Look into the dipole and the nondipole arguments, paleomagnetic evidence. BTW, when you are quoting people (eg. b, c), show a source will ya?

e. Geology?

f. So you're saying that only the Great Flood can explain evidence of food in these fish fossils. How does the Great Flood then, explain the survival of saltwater and freshwater fish when the two kinds collided in the Flood? Honestly, I don't know how to explain the food but maybe others can. Perhaps, local floods can explain the "sudden pressure" you mentioned, such those in the Tigris-Euphrates region for example?

5. But why can't our brains handle things when we are created in God's image? Am I to believe that God created us to be as handsome or pretty as He, but much stupider because... He loves us?

No, I have not seen the work of God. Would you explain this further?

Having knowledge of the supernatural is knowledge. To explain the supernatural means we must explore into the supernatural. We cannot explain something we don't have access to. Perhaps in time, we can learn to access if such things exist.

[lyndsayconard]

I believe both...because to not believe evolution exsists is ignorance, but also to believe that we came from absolutely nothing..that no higher power had anything to do with the beauty and miracles of earth is to be completely arrogant.

[AnnahhbeL]

evolution!
something had to come first..and not created.

[Joss-eh-lime]

Why does God punish evil humans, when God gave humans the free will to be evil? If God so love Man, why doesn't He create us in His image AND bless us with His intolerance for evil from inception, so that we don't suffer Hell? In other words, why gives us free will, then punishes us when we use his Gift?

God punishes us for our sins. Everyone sins...and he always forgives us you just have to ask to be forgiven. He gave us free will so we could choose to follow him and not be robots.

[Spirited Away]

God punishes us for our sins. Everyone sins...and he always forgives us you just have to ask to be forgiven. He gave us free will so we could choose to follow him and not be robots.

.. -__-
Do you hear yourself? God gave free will so that we'll choose to follow Him? Where is free will in that? Free will is being able to choose God or not to choose God or accept that both is okay. When we do not recognize God, we are still exercising free will, yet we are punished? Do you get it? We are punished for using Free Will. Hypocrisy.

Unconditional Love does not required asking a person to forgive. If making others ask you forgiveness is the only way you'd forgive someone... you are rather shallow. "You" is a generalization. Scenerio: your daughter steals from you. You love her unconditionally. Are you going to spend your time making her to apologize to you in order to forgive her or do you just forgive her silently and try to help her be a better person?

[f4113n]

something that is beyond current human comprehension since there are obviously big flaws in either side

[HolyMoly]

Sorry if this has been stated;

I am mormon so I belive in God and the creation, but no one has proof for anything. The Big Bang is just a theroy and the creation is a story, no one knows if it is made up or if it's true. We will find out when we die I guess...

'm for Creation, don't ask me for facts, I just have faith that it's true.

[*disco infiltrator*]

What influences you to have this faith? What made you stop and think about it and end up saying, "Yes, this must be true"?

[HolyMoly]

What influences you to have this faith? What made you stop and think about it and end up saying, "Yes, this must be true"?

Because i'm smart and cool like that...


J/k. Anyways I feel it is true because I have pondered and prayed and read my scriptures and I hae come to relize, it is true to me. It might not be true to you, but I have faith that it is. You might not but I do. No one knows.

[NoSex]

Anyways I feel it is true because I have pondered and prayed and read my scriptures and I hae come to relize, it is true to me. It might not be true to you, but I have faith that it is. You might not but I do. No one knows.

To realize the utter meaningless of the statement "true to me," is very eye opening. Why do we say it?

You can feel all you want, but feeling has very little to do with epistemology. Insofar as I can tell, you believe it because you were taught it. You believe it because you want to believe it. If it isn't true, your religious faith suffers conflict. Instead of changer and reforming your religious theories, which would in turn conflict with your world view, you opt to believe in something that "No one knows." You believe in something that has no real evidence, and no real reason to believe in. Unless of course you want to substitute reason with emotionalism. Which is just very unfortunate, rather detestable, and just plain disapointing.

Why do you believe it? Prove me wrong.

[*disco infiltrator*]

Adding to the question presented in Nate's post:

What do you know about other religious choices that people have made besides yourself? As in, what other religions are there besides Christianity that you've looked into? What do you know about Bhuddism? Shintoism? Islam? Judaism? To make such a strong decision, would you not look into the other possibilities that also have such a large following of people?

[NoSex]

Adding to the question presented in Nate's post:

What do you know about other religious choices that people have made besides yourself? As in, what other religions are there besides Christianity that you've looked into? What do you know about Bhuddism? Shintoism? Islam? Judaism? To make such a strong decision, would you not look into the other possibilities that also have such a large following of people?

I have looked into nearly all world religions.

[*disco infiltrator*]

I wasn't talking to you; I know you have, that's why I said I was adding onto yours, addressing the question to HolyMoly.

[NoSex]

I wasn't talking to you; I know you have, that's why I said I was adding onto yours, addressing the question to HolyMoly.

Oh. Silly me.

[misoshiru]

i believe that there might possibly be an "intelligent designer" somewhere out there, but that "intelligent designer" created evolution and left us to survive - hence, survival of the fittest.

[*disco infiltrator*]

^ Why?

[misoshiru]

because i feel that although the chance although how small it is, it is possible that the earth was created by a big bang. but it just seems sort of..."strange" in a way, that by this big bang, it also created one cell organisms that will eventually evolve into all of us now.

however, i don't deny that evolution does/does not exist - although personally, i feel that it most likely does. i feel that because the chances for the big bang to happen and one-celled organisms to pop up just like that is so slim, that the "intelligent designer" belief (not theory) can be plausible. that there was an "intelligent designer" who caused the big bang and made one-celled organisms. but since we cannot deny the evidence pointing to evolution, i conclude that we are just left by this "designer" to evolve.

[*CrackedRearView*]

What I want to know is why this debate has gone from a discussion between those that believe in creation and those that believe in evolution to a douchefest...

When and where did it turn into a "Why don't you study Buddhism, Hinduism, Jintoism, Islam or Daoism before you commit to Christianity" press and interrogation?

Get back to the topic at hand or get off of the thread...

[*disco infiltrator*]

That's quite related to the topic at hand since Creationism is a big part of Christianity and people are relying on their belief in Christianity as to what side they are arguing in this debate. So, if someone says, "I believe in Creationism because I'm Christian", I will then ask, "Why are you Christian?". Trying to figure out why you believe what you believe is a big part of this debate.

[*CrackedRearView*]

That's quite related to the topic at hand since Creationism is a big part of Christianity and people are relying on their belief in Christianity as to what side they are arguing in this debate. So, if someone says, "I believe in Creationism because I'm Christian", I will then ask, "Why are you Christian?". Trying to figure out why you believe what you believe is a big part of this debate.

None of what you said justifies interrogating someone (with a very consdescending connotation, I might add) about whether they've studied another religion or not.

First of all, you probably know that the answer is no. Not very many people have the patience that you and I have when it comes to seeking out higher answers, and I doubt that many people have thumbed through English versions of the Koran or read any Buddhist teachings.

Second, you know that by asking someone if they've studied anything besides Christianity you're insinuating (even if it's subconscious to you) that they're uninformed and following blind faith. No one wants to be condescending, but that's exactly what you've achieved. 95% of the people who are asked such a question would equate it with a comment like this:

"Well, you haven't even looked into Taoism or Islam, etc., therefore how can you make an honest judgment about your faith? You can't! Hah! Nanner nanner!"

I know I'm being nit-picky, but I especially don't like seeing anyone (Christians, and everyone for that matter) having their intelligence questioned.

[NoSex]

because i feel that although the chance although how small it is, it is possible that the earth was created by a big bang.  but it just seems sort of..."strange" in a way, that by this big bang, it also created one cell organisms that will eventually evolve into all of us now.

however, i don't deny that evolution does/does not exist - although personally, i feel that it most likely does.  i feel that because the chances for the big bang to happen and one-celled organisms to pop up just like that is so slim, that the "intelligent designer" belief (not theory) can be plausible.  that there was an "intelligent designer" who caused the big bang and made one-celled organisms.  but since we cannot deny the evidence pointing to evolution, i conclude that we are just left by this "designer" to evolve.

I fail to see how the chances of abiogenesis and the big bang occuring are slim, and how uttering the name of an "intelligent designer" explains or solves this problem. If anything, such a proposition just complicates the entire issue and adds assumptions which make the situation as a whole even less likely.

Imagine that a human being is so complex that it would require an intelligent designer to be created. How much more complex would this intelligent designer be? Given that this intelligent designer is so much more complex than its own creation, would not the intelligent designer require a more intelligent and even more complex creator? It's a neverending cycle of creations!

Adding a creator to explain something that appears unlikely just makes the entire situation even more and more unlikely. Now we need to explain the existence and origin of a creator.

It would also be important to note that this is not even an explanation. The use of an explanation is to help us understand a given situation. By uttering "God" as an asnwer to the cosmological problem, we are simply excusing away the issue. Trying to explain the unknown with the unknowable is absurd. That's not an explanation, that's an excuse.

Read about physics, abiogenesis, stellar evolution, cosmology, and biological evolution. Suddenly, all of this won't seem so unlikely. It's good that you are using your head though. Very good. Keep thinking, you're on the right path.

[*disco infiltrator*]

None of what you said justifies interrogating someone (with a very consdescending connotation, I might add) about whether they've studied another religion or not.

First of all, you probably know that the answer is no.  Not very many people have the patience that you and I have when it comes to seeking out higher answers, and I doubt that many people have thumbed through English versions of the Koran or read any Buddhist teachings.

Second, you know that by asking someone if they've studied anything besides Christianity you're insinuating (even if it's subconscious to you) that they're uninformed and following blind faith.  No one wants to be condescending, but that's exactly what you've achieved.  95% of the people who are asked such a question would equate it with a comment like this:

"Well, you haven't even looked into Taoism or Islam, etc., therefore how can you make an honest judgment about your faith?  You can't! Hah! Nanner nanner!"

I know I'm being nit-picky, but I especially don't like seeing anyone (Christians, and everyone for that matter) having their intelligence questioned.

Yes. That's right. I ask that when I know and can infer that people have not looked into any other answers than what they were fed and I can't understand why they would push something that they believe to be the answer to everything so vehemently without looking at any other possibilty. You can't deem something to be wrong when you know nothing about it. It would be as if someone asked me if Hostel was a good movie and me saying that it's not without having even seen it. It's based on nothing. There's no foundation to that claim because there's no prior knowledge.

I don't like when people do that, so when I suspect someone of doing so, I question it.

[*CrackedRearView*]

Yes. That's right. I ask that when I know and can infer that people have not looked into any other answers than what they were fed and I can't understand why they would push something that they believe to be the answer to everything so vehemently without looking at any other possibilty. You can't deem something to be wrong when you know nothing about it. It would be as if someone asked me if Hostel was a good movie and me saying that it's not without having even seen it. It's based on nothing. There's no foundation to that claim because there's no prior knowledge.

I don't like when people do that, so when I suspect someone of doing so, I question it.

By your logic, only agnostics, would be able to voice their opinion in this thread. I guess that leaves me in a good spot.

EDIT// Or perhaps very well-read Christians, and atheists for that matter.

[*disco infiltrator*]

Stating something as an absolute truth and that it is the way without any prior knowledge of any other view on the subject matter is quite different than saying, "This sounds like it could be right, but I don't know for sure since I haven't ever studied or heard anything different".

[misoshiru]

I fail to see how the chances of abiogenesis and the big bang occuring are slim, and how uttering the name of an "intelligent designer" explains or solves this problem. If anything, such a proposition just complicates the entire issue and adds assumptions which make the situation as a whole even less likely.

Well, then could you clear something up for me. As pertaining to the Big Bang theory, was it that the "big bang" that created the universe or the solar system? It was the universe, correct? Then, first of all, I feel that if an "intelligent designer" did not exist, then how do we know that molecules existed then, and crashed into each other, ultimately forming the Big Bang? (The point about the chances of the big bang occuring is slim came from my TOK teacher.) However, I don't truly understand how by having the Big Bang occuring, abiogenesis would exist. Since I'm not too clear on the link between abiogenesis and the big bang, could you please explain it to me?

Imagine that a human being is so complex that it would require an intelligent designer to be created. How much more complex would this intelligent designer be? Given that this intelligent designer is so much more complex than its own creation, would not the intelligent designer require a more intelligent and even more complex creator? It's a neverending cycle of creations!

Adding a creator to explain something that appears unlikely just makes the entire situation even more and more unlikely. Now we need to explain the existence and origin of a creator.

It would also be important to note that this is not even an explanation. The use of an explanation is to help us understand a given situation. By uttering "God" as an asnwer to the cosmological problem, we are simply excusing away the issue. Trying to explain the unknown with the unknowable is absurd. That's not an explanation, that's an excuse.

Read about physics, abiogenesis, stellar evolution, cosmology, and biological evolution. Suddenly, all of this won't seem so unlikely. It's good that you are using your head though. Very good. Keep thinking, you're on the right path.

But you see, I never stated that a "creator" created humans. I said that if such a creator truly existed, I would believe that all this creator did was allow evolution to take due course. It's true that the idea of having an "intelligent designer" has many flaws to it, but you can't deny the possibility of there having one. As I myself have said:

however, i don't deny that evolution does/does not exist - although personally, i feel that it most likely does.

I personally believe that evolution exists, however, the roots of how amoebas came to be can be questioned.