Evolution Versus Creationism

[princeofvegas 0]

The argument between evolution and intelligent design has been a heated debate for thousands of years. There are two sides to the debate that offer very valid points that fall within their perspective. I personally on the side of evolution because from my viewpoint there is much more evidence to support the fact that humans evolved. From where I stand, this is just a giant argument between science and religion. Creationist theory states that a higher being created man in his current form sometime in the last 10,000 years. That is very hard to believe when there have been fossils of *person* sapiens discovered dating back to almost 200,000 years ago. The carbon dating method used to date these fossils back that far is the same method that creationist scientists use to date their religious artifacts back to earlier times and is a scientifically accepted method of dating bones and artifacts. I am one to look at the facts of a story and I see no real way to dispute the fact that humans existed almost 200,000 years ago. Is that really possible if a higher being created man within the last 10,000 years?

 

I would not go as far to say that there is no science in the theory of intelligent design. I do however feel that the science that is applied to the intelligent design is selective. For example, intelligent design scientists will use carbon dating in order to date artifacts that they believe come from times in the near past. They rely on these results to successfully place an artifact within its appropriate timeframe. When a evolution scientist finds a human fossil that is 50,000 years old and uses the same method to date the fossil, the creationists say that there was something wrong with the test, or it was not conducted right. It is not right when scientific facts are used and twisted in order to suit an ulterior purpose. Solid facts, whether evolutionism or creationism, must be relied upon to draw a conclusion that cannot be debated. Even noted creationists have stated that there is no science to intelligent design. Statements that are made are out of religious faith, not scientific fact.

[shadowx 0]

Well i have a few arguments here, firstly the scientific:It's an accident. Look at this way, if it had never happened then no-one would ever know it didnt happen because we wouldnt be here. Right? I mean its inevitable from a conscious standpoint. If humans had never evolved then you would never have been born to think "oh look, i never evolved and i was never born" you cant think if you havent been born. Hence it is inevitable that you were born. Let's say it took 10 trillion years and 100bn different planets before humans evolved. It doesnt matter how unlikely it is it HAS to happen. If it doesnt then no-one is there to say "Oh, that never happened" because they cant exist. That means the only question can ever be "Why did humans evolve?" And it could NEVER have been "Why *didnt* humans evolve" because no-one is there to ask it. Does that make sense? Think about it... Chance is irrelevant. It's like seeing a person stumble out of the jungle after being stranded for a year. Even if their chances of getting out alive were 100 to 1 it doesnt matter. they ARE out alive so their chances are irrelevant. No matter how long the chance of something happening is there is only ever two outcomes. It either does happen or it doesnt. There is also the evolutionary point to answer the question "Why are humans intelligent?" well if they werent intelligent they died. Simple. If you are a dumb pre-historic human you have no claws, teeth or horns to fight with. You are a bite size meal for a pack of lions and you are so dumb you try to talk to lions and pet them. You're going to get eaten and so you will never h ave kids so the stupidity dies with you. Through this process humanity gets more intelligent. Why are there only a few extremely hairy women? Or only a few men who look like women (naturally) because these people dont get the chance to mate and have children. Only the strongest (mentally physically and in attraction) people breed and have kids, so therefore the next generation is more "attractive" than the last. and then only the best of the best of those children have kids and so on. Through this process dumbness, weakness etc.... are slowly removed from the gene pool. Now, dont think im shallow, there is much more to attraction and relationships than this. But this is how evolution works. Find a male peacock and paint all its feathers grey. He aint having no babies! So if he was a "faulty" peacock who had bad genes that gave him dull feathers he wouldnt get a mate and so only the most vibrant peacocks have kids and so they are even more vibrant and so on.Then of course there is the more "religious" option. I dont consider myself religious, i consider myself a pagan of sorts and hence believe in various powers of the earth, universe etc...I dont know how that would make intelligence but i leave that up to you...What do i believe? Hum... I believe evolution. Like you said there is too much evidence for it. But this doesnt rule out any religion or any of the various energies that i think flow through the universe. It isnt a case of science OR religion it can be science AND religion (even though i dont term my beliefs religious lets just pretend i do...)So i can believe the science of evolution, because i see the evidence, and yet what i feel inside me is that there are energies science hasnt discovered yet but it doesnt mean that science is wrong about everything. Far from it.PS creationism is just foolish... Unless i am shown evidence of something i cannot believe it. Plus so much of what religious texts say has been proven wrong. Especially with relevance to the dates like you mentioned so that part IS false, which makes me wonder what else is.

[inverse_bloom 0]

Mmm... yes i agree with ShadowX i dont believe creationism is much of a valid science. The fact that we now exist is only drawn from the possibilities available from the universe. I believe the universe itself morphs after each explosion and implosion (quite possibly along a membrane) resulting in new possibilities for life, if ofcourse all of the conditions are right in any given spot.

 

As much as i would like to believe in Creationism (as it would give comfort) i just cant see it to be true. To a certain degree it does fit better in the question "How or why was the Universe created?". But how can we ever concretely understand something that isn't observable at all? That requires "belief" or extrapolations of what we "do" know.

 

Like ShadowX mentioned i also believe in the validity of natural selection. i.e. future evolutions of animals develop better adaptations (or designs) to their surrounding environment. This i achieved by funneling out the bad designs in the manner ShadowX described above. For instance our species relies on social interactions to achieve goals otherwise unattainable. If i remember correctly there was another species a long time ago that shared many similarities to "H0mo sapiens" the main difference was they weren't sociable and therefore due to that characteristic didn't survive as a species. (as they didn't have the required adaption to continue).

 

Thats partially why women are more selective then men when choosing their mates, they're using naturally preprogrammed behaviors which sift "out" males who wont reproduce strong/smart offspring. Which is arguably one of the prime purposes of our existence, like it or not we are set up that way.

Edited December 11, 2009 by inverse_bloom (see edit history)

[anwiii 17]

i agreed with you somewhat up until your p.s.

creationism is part of a belief which has to do with a person's faith. you stated you have to have all the facts before you believe in anything. are you trying to tell me that you have never had any faith in something where you didn't have all the facts? as an example....what about faith in people or trusting them? because what you are saying is you will never trust anyone until they give you reasons and there are facts to support that people can be trusted.

you say you want to live your life with just believing in the facts. but are you? even though you don't believe in god, there are no facts to support that either....is there. what you did was just twist the situation to support your own belief NOT based on facts or evidence. btw- science has been proven wrong in the past too but are we going to discredit ALL science?

time to rethink your logic after your p.s. remark

PS creationism is just foolish... Unless i am shown evidence of something i cannot believe it. Plus so much of what religious texts say has been proven wrong. Especially with relevance to the dates like you mentioned so that part IS false, which makes me wonder what else is.

[shadowx 0]

Doh my post got lost I need to strip the delete keys out of the computers in this place, i might get some peace then :PAnyhoo... Creationism fails on two accounts: Firstly there is evidence, that is known to be fact that proves it is false. given the time scales shown in the bible (im going to refer to Christianity here as ive had it rammed down my throat enough to know a little of which i speak.). There are some christians who think dinosaurs did not exist because god didnt make them and all the fossils are fake. Nice one. Plus there is evidence for evolution: Evidence FOR evolution + Evidence AGAINST creationism = Evolution sounding more likely. And then there is the general falsity and incompleteness of the bible itself. Many chapters or books of the bible are missing. What i mean by missing is that they have been deliberately left out to lead people astray. Topics that deal with Mary not being a virgin are missing and various other pieces that generally discredit the Christian faith have been torn out. Based on the fact the religion cant even publish most of it's history due to lies and shame i cant believe their incredible story about Creationism.Christianity and Judaism are basically the same stories anyway (i know im going to get flamed for that but im going to hell anyway so i might as well get used to flames eh?) Most of Buddhist faiths are generally metaphorical and the parts that arent are more myth than truth. Most of the pagan paths dont teach any form of creationism. A world doesnt have to be created by some almighty god to make it special and a nice place, those pagan religions that do teach of a world created by gods and goddesses are again metaphorical or mythical. It isn't taught as being fact rather as a nice story and instead of saying the god and godess were above you watching you you are (usually) taught that various things *represent* them, depending on which deities you adhere to usually it is a case of the moon representing the female goddess (mainly due to its more feminine nature and the fact it is linked to the menstrual cycle somewhat) and the god either being represented by the sun or various trees with his attributes. Some paths obviously teach differently, and belief is individual.While most of that is irrelevant i wouldnt want anyone to think i was specifically picking on Christianity. You are entitled to your beliefs, i do not dislike Christianity as a religion but i do dislike its methods, hypocrisy, corruption and most of its followers who try to convince me im evil. Move along please.

[truefusion 3]

The argument between evolution and intelligent design has been a heated debate for thousands of years.

Thousands of years? I'ma assume this is one of those statements for the sake of introduction.

 

There are two sides to the debate that offer very valid points that fall within their perspective. I personally on the side of evolution because from my viewpoint there is much more evidence to support the fact that humans evolved. From where I stand, this is just a giant argument between science and religion. Creationist theory states that a higher being created man in his current form sometime in the last 10,000 years. That is very hard to believe when there have been fossils of *person* sapiens discovered dating back to almost 200,000 years ago. The carbon dating method used to date these fossils back that far is the same method that creationist scientists use to date their religious artifacts back to earlier times and is a scientifically accepted method of dating bones and artifacts. I am one to look at the facts of a story and I see no real way to dispute the fact that humans existed almost 200,000 years ago. Is that really possible if a higher being created man within the last 10,000 years?

To correct the part i put in bold: Homosapiens are not the humans that you see today. Modern homosapiens, the humans you see today, are called homosapien-sapien. Therefore it is not a wonder as to why many Creationists declare that us humans have not lived for around 200,000 years, though they are merely stating this from an interpretation of the Bible. Also, to claim that a homosapien is a human is to assume the very thing you are trying to prove. So i do not see how you can consider such a thing as evidence.

 

I would not go as far to say that there is no science in the theory of intelligent design. I do however feel that the science that is applied to the intelligent design is selective. For example, intelligent design scientists will use carbon dating in order to date artifacts that they believe come from times in the near past. They rely on these results to successfully place an artifact within its appropriate timeframe. When a evolution scientist finds a human fossil that is 50,000 years old and uses the same method to date the fossil, the creationists say that there was something wrong with the test, or it was not conducted right. It is not right when scientific facts are used and twisted in order to suit an ulterior purpose. Solid facts, whether evolutionism or creationism, must be relied upon to draw a conclusion that cannot be debated. Even noted creationists have stated that there is no science to intelligent design. Statements that are made are out of religious faith, not scientific fact.

If you really and objectively do the research for both sides, you'll realize that much of the "evidence" declared for the theory of evolution can be applied and goes hand-in-hand with creationism. Take for example the implied structural design patterns seen within each kind of animal: fish requiring to live in water; birds have feathers and wings (even if they can't use those wings to fly); livestock have four legs with hooves; et cetera. There are other things i could mention, but i just wanted to give a brief example. Things that can be applied to both cannot be evidence for either and therefore must be dropped. What has to be considered when listening to the evolutionists speak is what are their assumptions; you have to get down to the root of the matter. For example, i once saw this video of this one guy speaking. He said that if humans evolved from this kind of sapien, then one would expect to find some, i think it was, hormone. He then shows a drawing of this hormone and concludes that we did evolve from this kind of sapien. This is not evidence for anything; it is fallacious at best: it's a kind of circular reasoning. However, many supporters of the theory of evolution (though i'm inclined to say all) won't see these fallacies.

 

It's an accident. Look at this way, if it had never happened then no-one would ever know it didnt happen because we wouldnt be here. Right? I mean its inevitable from a conscious standpoint. If humans had never evolved then you would never have been born to think "oh look, i never evolved and i was never born" you cant think if you havent been born. Hence it is inevitable that you were born. Let's say it took 10 trillion years and 100bn different planets before humans evolved. It doesnt matter how unlikely it is it HAS to happen. If it doesnt then no-one is there to say "Oh, that never happened" because they cant exist. That means the only question can ever be "Why did humans evolve?" And it could NEVER have been "Why *didnt* humans evolve" because no-one is there to ask it. Does that make sense? Think about it...

I thought about it as i was reading it. At first i thought that you would eventually get to the point of providing some evidence, trying to prove the theory of evolution, but that does not seem to be the case. You say "if humans never evolved ...", but that's a false dilemma and assumes the very thing you were supposed to be trying to prove. Life existing is not limited to the theory of evolution; likewise, since the theory of evolution cannot cause this universe into existence, evolution therefore becomes irrelevant, as without existence to begin with, evolution has no means of acting.

 

There is also the evolutionary point to answer the question "Why are humans intelligent?" well if they werent intelligent they died. Simple. If you are a dumb pre-historic human you have no claws, teeth or horns to fight with. You are a bite size meal for a pack of lions and you are so dumb you try to talk to lions and pet them. You're going to get eaten and so you will never h ave kids so the stupidity dies with you. Through this process humanity gets more intelligent.

This is self-contradicting; mutually exclusive. You say that if we were idiots, we would not exist, but you also say that our intelligence is the by-product of an evolutionary process. So how on earth did we survive with our former stupidity? Remember, evolution, as its definition, requires a great amount of time to reach a more complex state.

 

Why are there only a few extremely hairy women? Or only a few men who look like women (naturally) because these people dont get the chance to mate and have children. Only the strongest (mentally physically and in attraction) people breed and have kids, so therefore the next generation is more "attractive" than the last. and then only the best of the best of those children have kids and so on. Through this process dumbness, weakness etc.... are slowly removed from the gene pool. Now, dont think im shallow, there is much more to attraction and relationships than this. But this is how evolution works. Find a male peacock and paint all its feathers grey. He aint having no babies! So if he was a "faulty" peacock who had bad genes that gave him dull feathers he wouldnt get a mate and so only the most vibrant peacocks have kids and so they are even more vibrant and so on.

This likewise contradicts reality. Many people who would be called ugly are married and have children; and there are cases where these children are good looking. Note that age is normally the deciding factor for looks. As for animals, a lot of them will do just about anything. I'd be amazed if you've never heard of a dog going after a person's leg in that fashion. Their passion-driven, uncontrolled selves will cause them to breed with anything, even if they are incompatible.

 

PS creationism is just foolish... Unless i am shown evidence of something i cannot believe it.

Personally, i am still waiting for proof for the theory of evolution.

[mahesh2k 0]

btw- science has been proven wrong in the past too but are we going to discredit ALL science?

Science is proven wrong and replaced with what explanation? I'm interested in knowing that where science was proved wrong and what rational explanation we got without scientific method. And to the point of discrediting it, do you know that science works on point of verification and falsification. So how come it was proved wrong ? Personally, i'm waiting for empirical evidence of creationism. Is there any ?

I would not go as far to say that there is no science in the theory of intelligent design. I do however feel that the science that is applied to the intelligent design is selective.

Indeed, it is selective and it just works by finding gaps in study of evolution. There is no scientific method in creationism. If i'm not wrong even Christianity discards creationism (ID theories). Only religions supporting ID these days are islam,hinduism and some other religions.

[anwiii 17]

you are still waiting for proof in this thread? you sound like shadowx now needing evidence for things. you already stated in another thread that you believe in evolution but it was god's will for the evolution process. i forget where the thread is or if you yourself stated facts on your own belief. there are some facts that support evolution including fossil records from the past and what are structure is today. BUT! is that really evidence? i am talking with truefusion now so he will say it is not... as god could have created a different but similar species and those are what the records indicate just to argue the point of evolution.

i really hate these threads because they go absolutely nowhere. i also love(sarcastic) the fact the people can totally miss the other threads and create a new one saying the exact same thing.

you know... a wise man once said, "It's not what you know you don't know that's the problem... it's what you don't know that you don't know." think about it. i have always said the same thing except in different words. it talks about ignorance and the problem ignorance creates. i think that concept directly relates to these types of conversations.

now i have a question. why is it that the bible doesn't talk about ANYTHING other than what can be seen by human eyes? i mean...come on now. there is a lot of planets, solar systems and galaxies out there. why isn't any of that mentioned in the bible? some can say because the bible is man made and made up to support a belief based on things that you can see. what does creationism have to do with life or even intelligent life on other planets?

also, if god created everything with a purpose, then astronomy has it's own purpose which would make astrology more believable, wouldn't it?

there is a lot of things that will never be answered in this thread. every arguement is invalid because they are only theories or beliefs.

what i would like to see is people talking about what they really know and support what they know with a story of their own experiences. not what scientists dictate or what the bible tries to make us believe. is that even at all possible or are we all just followers of other peoples work or beliefs or theories....

Personally, i am still waiting for proof for the theory of evolution.

[truefusion 3]

Creationism fails on two accounts: Firstly there is evidence, that is known to be fact that proves it is false. given the time scales shown in the bible (im going to refer to Christianity here as ive had it rammed down my throat enough to know a little of which i speak.). There are some christians who think dinosaurs did not exist because god didnt make them and all the fossils are fake. Nice one. Plus there is evidence for evolution: Evidence FOR evolution + Evidence AGAINST creationism = Evolution sounding more likely.

What is this "evidence" that goes against Creationism? From what i can gather from your statement, it deals with fossils, specifically dinosaurs. Genesis doesn't prevent the possibility of dinosaurs. If you are talking about the dating of each, on how one is earlier than the other, Genesis also specifies an order of creation, even if that order is limited to modern creation, therefore implying that there was an order with previous forms of creation. I see no difference with this from the theory of evolution.

 

And then there is the general falsity and incompleteness of the bible itself. Many chapters or books of the bible are missing. What i mean by missing is that they have been deliberately left out to lead people astray. Topics that deal with Mary not being a virgin are missing and various other pieces that generally discredit the Christian faith have been torn out. Based on the fact the religion cant even publish most of it's history due to lies and shame i cant believe their incredible story about Creationism.

The things that are "missing" are the things that were false. What happens when you have mutually exclusive information within the same book? You say the information is missing; however, if you were to add it in, you would get mutually exclusive content, therefore your statement is illogical. You, however, are most likely referring to perhaps apocrypha or maybe even Gnostic text, but i have no idea—i have heard many, many statements like these, which never held any water.

 

Christianity and Judaism are basically the same stories anyway (i know im going to get flamed for that but im going to hell anyway so i might as well get used to flames eh?) Most of Buddhist faiths are generally metaphorical and the parts that arent are more myth than truth. Most of the pagan paths dont teach any form of creationism. A world doesnt have to be created by some almighty god to make it special and a nice place, those pagan religions that do teach of a world created by gods and goddesses are again metaphorical or mythical. It isn't taught as being fact rather as a nice story and instead of saying the god and godess were above you watching you you are (usually) taught that various things *represent* them, depending on which deities you adhere to usually it is a case of the moon representing the female goddess (mainly due to its more feminine nature and the fact it is linked to the menstrual cycle somewhat) and the god either being represented by the sun or various trees with his attributes. Some paths obviously teach differently, and belief is individual.

A "myth" is not something that is false or untrue. While society today has been very rhetorical with the word "myth" trying to get it to bear a different definition than what it really has, the word myth has nothing to do with falsehoods. Likewise, just because it is implied by other religions that their text were not to be taken seriously (assuming you state this merely because you personally find some of the things written in certain texts absurd), it does not follow that every other religion felt that their text shouldn't be taken seriously.

 

you are still waiting for proof in this thread? you sound like shadowx now needing evidence for things. you already stated in another thread that you believe in evolution but it was god's will for the evolution process. i forget where the thread is or if you yourself stated facts on your own belief. there are some facts that support evolution including fossil records from the past and what are structure is today. BUT! is that really evidence? i am talking with truefusion now so he will say it is not... as god could have created a different but similar species and those are what the records indicate just to argue the point of evolution.

Provide a link to that post of mine and you will see i do not hold that position which you say that i say i hold. Try the topic kobra500 started asking what would it take for believers in God to convince them of the theory of evolution. I will say that the support you speak of for the theory of evolution from the fossil record is not evidence, but not for the reason you state. It is not evidence because they, from what i have seen, are merely playing a guessing game, appealing to probability. They are already assuming the very thing they are trying to prove. You need more than an argument that states that such and such look alike, therefore one came from the other.

 

There is a margin of error for each argument i've seen for the theory of evolution, therefore i cannot assume it or take it as a definitive fact—let alone a fact. As i've stated before in another thread, science isn't necessarily about facts: they tend to state things as if it were a fact, where sometimes you end up figuring out it was still being scrutinized and the size of its margin of error.

 

now i have a question. why is it that the bible doesn't talk about ANYTHING other than what can be seen by human eyes? i mean...come on now. there is a lot of planets, solar systems and galaxies out there. why isn't any of that mentioned in the bible? some can say because the bible is man made and made up to support a belief based on things that you can see. what does creationism have to do with life or even intelligent life on other planets?

The Bible, in the Book of Genesis and else where, by the plural word "heavens," implies that there are more than one heaven. The New Testament (one of Paul's writings) talks about a fellow that, while in the spirit, made it up to the third heaven, where there are many spiritual entities. Likewise, there is talk about the stars as well.

 

also, if god created everything with a purpose, then astronomy has it's own purpose which would make astrology more believable, wouldn't it?

When God created everything, at that point of creation, did astrology exist? No, therefore it cannot be said that God created everything that exists today. It is a common misconception, to include things of today with what God created. Obviously, therefore, what is meant by "everything" is merely, as stated in Genesis, the heavens and the earth.

[shadowx 0]

I knew when i say TF's name i was in for a mental battle! Here goes...Firstly a disclaimer: I havent read many religious texts. In fact the only religious texts i have read are those i was forced to study at school. Personally i find that the mainstream religions are nonsense usually based around the earth based religious practices at the time. For example Easter and Christmas are both set within a few days of the ancient pagan days of Yule and Oestara and feature very, very similar traditions. Christmas is based on yule or the winter Solstice which typically falls on the 21st or sometimes the 22nd of December. Earth worshipping religions chose this because of the symbolism of light over dark, a fresh start a logical end to the year or whatever... A lot of pagan traditions revolve around lighting candles and the Yule log, which is a log decorated with various fruits, leaves and other decorations and then burned in the fireplace or hearth. (by the way, im sure you know most of this TF, but others might not so im going through it) Now, practically this cant really be done all the time... So i imagine it is where the tradition of a christmas tree comes from. Why is this important?Well unfortunately im bible bashing again... The christians who wanted power and money needed to convince the pagans of europe that Christianity was the way forward. They did this by many ways, usually using torture, killing and various other blood fests, one less brutal method that was used was either demonising paganism or by telling the pagans that paganism was in fact christianity and integrate themselves into pagan festivals. Christmas is a prime example of this. When the christians could convince the pagans to stop their celebrations they just plonked christmas day right next to Yule. Adopting almost all of the traditions. Feasts, and even the very tradition of the birth of Christ himself. Yes folks, that's a sequel as well. The neo-Wiccans of today celebrate the soltace as the (re)-birth of their god, who is represented by the sun rising in his splendor and glory on the morning of the 21st to banish the darkness and gain in strength up to the summer solstace where he stands strong and proud. Convenient then that Jesus was also born around yule? It's not a perfect match i admit but its damn close, too close to ignore in fact. And to be fair if a child was born 4 days from christmas and looked a bit like jesus many christians would readily accept him as a new saviour, they wouldnt need 100% match but im sure they will dispute what i have said.Oestara then... Sounds very much like Easter, is a celebration of the spring time, features rabbits and eggs extensively (using eggs to represent new growth, fertility (woman) etc... and often decorating them in pale yellows, and other pastel colours) In fairness it doesnt feature the rebirth of anyone, but given the fact that Oestara is about the symbolism of birth and fertility a "dead" jesus emerging from a cave has some links. And the date is also very close. I think in the old calendar it is the 21st of March and in the new calendar can vary between then and a few days into April. Oestara is the 21st/22nd of March. The Equinox, a time when light is stronger than dark. This all leads us back to the debate at hand... From a religion that is essentially paganism rebranded we are taught that God created the world in 7 days. Now, i know age doesnt affect the "truth" of any religion. And im not saying Paganism is 100% correct, however. You have to admit that if paganism existed thousands of years beforehand and then Christianity comes along using the same symbolism, the same holidays and the same ideas (even the holy trinity can be traced to paganism with the triple goddess who represents the maiden, mother and crone/(older lady)) and then tortures, kills and beats anyone who doesnt believe before using the "Youre going to hell!" guilt trip and then taxing its followers very heavily (i mean come on. The pope probably wipes his backside with gold leaf) is really not something i can ever believe. Like i said, i'm not saying paganism is correct and true. It is what i subscribe to through experiences and feelings i have had as well as common sense. Im not a religious fanatic, i work with technology every day, read science articles every day and am generally very scientific. I also have strong beleifs that science calls stupid and unreal. So i like to think i am fairly balanced when it comes to science Vs god but I'm sorry. The things Christianity has done in the name of power and money and the lies they have spread and continue to spread is beyond me. There is undoubtedly a religion that existed before paganism upon which paganism and the recent offshoots such as Wicca, are based on. But paganism doesnt pretend to be the only answer.I am not saying the Christian god doesnt/didnt exist. Personally i think that if you pray to god (henceforth god = Christian god) things will happen. It will have an effect. Im not saying he isnt there. But what i believe is an energy is out there. Chrstianity calls it god, Islam: allah, Wiccans: the god and goddess and the Egyptians had many names for it. The name is irrelevant call it bob jones it doesnt matter. It will accept your will and affect you and those around you whether you pray to it or invoke it in meditation or witchcraft. What i am saying however is that no-one or thing created the earth in accordance with the creationist theory. There is the argument about what triggered the big bang etc.. and I cant answer that. But i can say that creationism just doesnt work. It comes from religions based on religions based on religions.Some say that the creationist story is a metaphor. 7 days represents a huge long timescale but that god still made the earth. More plausible but i still cant believe anything that christianity says. I honestly cant. I mean recently some kids were found to have been abuse in Ireland by priests and what not. When the Irish police requested information from the Vatican they got ignored!!!! How can you trust anything this religion tries to tell you when it prides its own reputation over the safety of children?! Holy cow... Seriously.... Also its a religion about male domination, as is islam and judaism. That's why god is a man, jesus/moses/the phophet is a man, the 12 disciples are all men, actually virtually every character in the bible is a man... to be honest. Except Mary. That's why in the western world and any country dominated by Islam/Christianity/Judaism women have lower pay, lower rights, etc....

[anwiii 17]

that is just ridiculous. so you are saying that heaven is actually in the sky from the earth's perspective? does that intimate that thee really is no "heaven"? because you are referring to heaven as galaxies? am i getting this correctly? your arguement just has no basis for it. how many times does the bible refer to heaven? too many to count....obviously heaven is one thing and heavens is multiples of that one thing.

 

also, for the sake of arguement that god is always right, that doesn't mean MAN is always right. therefore, the probability of the bible being right now decreases because it was written by man. not god.

 

as far as your astronomy statement, what are you saying? you are being vague like usual to not state your own beliefs. are you saying that there isn't any purpose to the "heavens" and we cannot predict things through the stars and planets? because what i am getting through your vagueness is that if it's not in the bible, it wasn't created by god. is this what you were trying to say?

 

it's funny that some people use science to prove creationism. they use examples of science that goes with things that was written in the bible("god's word") it's argued that god's word came before the science to prove the validity of the bible. what i have to say on that is to take your own words that science is ever changing. what is true in science today is false tomorrow. this has been proven time and time again. this is why we haven't been using the same science books today that our grandparents used when they were kids.

 

i am not going to search for a thread that will take me hours just to prove a point, but you did describe evolution as part of god's plan for our future. you DID say that. i am not making that up bud haha. it's either you believed in that or you were doing what you do alot and spew b.s. just to argue a point that you don't even believe in.

 

this is why i have said time and time again....and you are the only person here that does it in such an extreme way. you very rarely state what you believe in and try to discredit others in their own believe leaving you closed to others discrediting you in return. i always respect those who can add their own beliefs in the equation of arguement and have less respect for those who are afraid to stand up for their beliefs...like they are ashamed of them for some reason. not saying that you are ashamed of your beliefs, but you don't really present any valid arguement towards any of your beliefs. you are too busy discrediting other.

 

which...in some cases is a good thing. the more one can discredit, what's left, is more of the truth. but then, are the discredits valid or can the discredits be discredited.

 

this is why i don't like these threads or your tactics in these threads because everything can be discredited. even you and these threads get nowhere. what if there is truth to all beliefs where does discrediting beliefs get us? nowhere unless they are based on some sort of fact or evidence. so for these threads, it's best to state a belief and state why you believe. not to discredit anyone's belief or theory.

 

in these types of threads, to get to the real answers to the questions, one must talk from personal experiences. or trying to go the philisophical route in using logic to determine an answer. questions like, "if god exists, does that mean evolution doesn't?" or "if the big bang created the universe, does that mean there is no higher power?", etc...etc.. but even when you look at this subject at a philisophical standpoint, there are no conclusions so everything is still left up in the air....UNLESS we respect the beliefs in others, respect the beliefs of others, and assume there is truth in most every belief. we would get further as a world society without trying to discredit beliefs and try to understand the truth in the different beliefs and why it's a belief or a religion in the first place. but i also believe that there is also untruths to everything as well(in regards to beliefs and religions).

 

there is a reason why discrediting is pointless and useless when discredits can come from both sides. when you are trying to find a truth to an answer in subjects like this and the reasoning or discrediting isn't getting anywhere, one has to understand why and take another approach to make the beliefs and arguements more valid...unless people like to type or talk and get nowhere.

 

and there is a reason why i post about this. my prediction is that this thread will die quickly as the others have done in the past and nobody got anywhere in being productive in stating their beliefs and why they believe in them. i even hate the topic title. "evolution vs. creationism" like it's some sort of a competition or war where there can only be on winner. it's ridiculous in my eyes

 

i mean, what is evolution and what is creationism. people know what's written as a definition, but people have also added and subtracted from a standard definition to create their own definition. we first have to define what evolution is and what creationism is before we can even talk about how they compete with one another.

 

What is this "evidence" that goes against Creationism? From what i can gather from

The Bible, in the Book of Genesis and else where, by the plural word "heavens," implies that there are more than one heaven. The New Testament (one of Paul's writings) talks about a fellow that, while in the spirit, made it up to the third heaven, where there are many spiritual entities. Likewise, there is talk about the stars as well.

 

 

When God created everything, at that point of creation, did astrology exist? No, therefore it cannot be said that God created everything that exists today. It is a common misconception, to include things of today with what God created. Obviously, therefore, what is meant by "everything" is merely, as stated in Genesis, the heavens and the earth.

Edited December 11, 2009 by anwiii (see edit history)

[mahesh2k 0]

i really hate these threads because they go absolutely nowhere.

I agree,most of times these debates go to nowhere and get boring later with people moving in circle with debate. Besides less number of evidence on evolution doesn't make creationism right. Or discarding evolution without any solid data doesn't make creationism right. Besides that other than fossil records i have seen many evidences which are completely ignored by creationists. For that some examples are here. Besides i really enjoyed these creationists attacks on evolution. And not matter how much evolution examples are given they are just merely argued with poor ID theories and without any solid data. I don't like this very approach of creationists that they speak on behalf of designer and discard evolution. Why is that ? I would like to observe creationists to know this answer.

[shadowx 0]

Mahesh has a good point:

And not matter how much evolution examples are given they are just merely argued with poor ID theories and without any solid data

No matter how many times you tell someone their beleifs are wrong the majority of them will ignore you.

I try to be open, if someone tells me that there can be no magickal energy in the universe i will pose questions of why not etc... and listen to their arguments. But some people will close up.

I try to take things on a "what if" basis, so if you tell me god made the universe in 7 days i try to think "what if he did, how would that work, what about the dinosaurs, what about the difference in time between the dinosaurs and the humans etc..."

Also what anwii said is interesting. The debate between big bang and god being the creator of the universe. Its a chicken and egg situation because something needed to create god, yet it seems unfeasible that the big bang created itself, so therefore perhaps it was created by god, but then with no universe where was god before the big bang? He cant have been outside of the big bang because the outside didnt exist. But he cant've been inside the big bang because how could he cause it if he hadnt been created by it yet?

That being said if science proves the big bang in the future it still doenst disprove god. God could well have been created by the big bang. This is my own belief with my "universal energy" (which im going to refer to as magick or magickal energy) theory. The big bang is IMHO the only theory that can explain the originas of the universe. The universe is expanding, FACT. Think of a grenade, it goes BOOM! and fragments fly off everywhere. Now, if i were to film it and then cover the area where the grenade is with a piece of cardboard you could watch the video, draw lines back from each fragment and work out EXACTLY where the grenade was. That's how we know the big bang happened. But the big bang created so much stuff, i think over 90% of which we cannot see, feel or even detect. So what is it? Could it be god? Or magickal energy?

Yes. Put simply. I dont think its impossible for god to exist. Ive stated my belief but i am open to the existence of god. However, what i do not believe is:
This god is the property of christians, or hindus, or muslims etc... i dont believe their stories of the properties of their respective god(s)
God created everything. Sorry, i dont buy it.
God will send me to hell if i dont believe in him. Sorry but damn what a bast**d! you dont think iom real eh? TO HELL WITH YOU! No "nice" god would do that.... Would you? No.
There is a heaven and a hell. nope. Cant logically happen. What if i love my mum, but she killed someone and was a complete sinner? Yet i was a god loving christian. By rights i should go to heaven and she should go to hell. But my love for her is so strong that to be without her it would be like hell. So even though i go to heaven im not with her so i feel really sad and it is like hell to me. So what happened? I was good yet i still get punished? So then god would have to take my mum to heaven, but shes a sinner so he cant do that so he would have to send me to hell, but he cant do that because im good... Maybe he could clone her? But no... Because thats a sin too according to the church... So god is royally stuffed! Hence heaven/hell cannot exist. (plus heaven is subjective to every person). Instead i think there is a universal plane or universe we all go to when we die. Those who are spiritually "dead" like murders etc.. who sacrifice their soul and their love for a life or killing. These people are low frequency spirits and hence are stuck to the bottom plane of existence where the other low lifes are. The more spiritual you are the higher your frequency until you reach "heaven" a place of pure light and power. Here the universal truths exist and this is where a god would reside if one exists. (sounds similar to heaven/hell huh? The lower you are the more "evil" people are, and the top level is where the good people and god exist... Strange that.. another christian-pagan link....
And finally, i dont believe in creationism! The evidence tells me its false!

All in all if the christian faith was one of honesty and rough truth of things that are likely to have happened and wasnt full of lies and spread through torture and murder then i would have an easier time of believing it. It's like a persistent liar telling you some amazing fact... Now if it was someone you trust you might accept it but it's not...

[anwiii 17]

strangly enough, i hold very similar beliefs. i think your thoughts are for some interesting reading...

[shadowx 0]

you are a very hard person to figure out sometimes :PNo matter what you believe you need to question it, every day. If you cant find an answer then drop it. Its not for you.