Creationism isn't Right

[Tania]

Yeah, there is. If I tell two people there's a tiger in the bathroom, behind the closed door, the person who believes that is taking a leap of faith, but the person who thinks that's an absolutely ridiculous suggestion for a bunch of logical reasons is still, without being able to know 100% for sure that there isn't a tiger in the bathroom until the door is opened, basing it on faith. One just might be a more grounded faith than the other, in that one might be believing it because I say it is so and I don't normally make this shit up, and the other disbelieves based on the grounded logic that (a) where the fuck would I get a tiger from in the suburbs of Sydney (b) how the fuck would I get it into the bathroom (c) why is there no other evidence of it outside the bathroom - no trailer attached to my car, no muddy tiger prints or fur in the hallway, me being in possession of all my limbs (etc etc etc).

Not believing in a religious sense is exactly the same leap of faith as believing - seeing as if it wasn't, it wouldn't be because you were able to actually prove the non-existence, but you can't just as much as 'they' can't prove the existence - so it's a leap for both of you.

I'd like a tiger in my bathroom. Might get the kiddliewinks in and out of the bath quicker.

 

[Tania]

Note: Evolution is a theory which is supported by scientific facts (which we can either dispute or accept, personally I accept). Christianity is a belief system, not a theory, so the argument that one has facts to back it and one doesn't seems a bit erroneous.

 

[Ormus]

First off, if you're looking for scientific evidence to prove or validate Christianity, you wont find it. That being said, I dont believe in evolution. I believe 100% in creationism. I believe God created Adam and Eve, day and night, the plants and the animals, the sea and the sky in 6 days. Christianity is a religion. It takes FAITH to believe what you believe, and it will never, ever be proven scientifically, and quite frankly, I dont want it to be.

To me, the athiest approach of the big bang is hard to believe. To me, THAT takes faith to believe. Creationism is a no-brainer to me and surely millions of Christians across the planet. You're right that creation will never and cannot be proven, but science isnt everything.

If you consider yourself a Christian and want to believe in evolution, knock yourself out, but thats not for me. I refuse to accept the notion that my great great... grandfather was a monkey.

Except science has more than disproven literal creationism a long time ago. To put it this way, sure, Christianity boils down to faith, but seven-day creationism itself did not happen, and there is an immense amount of evidence that the planet is more than 6,000 years old.

Evolution is not necessarily "the atheistic position," and for the billions of Catholics around the world, for instance, God-driven evolution ("evolutionary creationism," a.k.a., "theistic evolution"--not to be confused with the incompatible "intelligent design") is the Vatican-approved standard.

 

[BVS]

what is the point ?

the few Religious people that will share their opinions in this forum

are supposed to step up and take a few on the chin?

I agree...

 

[BVS]

First off, if you're looking for scientific evidence to prove or validate Christianity, you wont find it. That being said, I dont believe in evolution. I believe 100% in creationism. I believe God created Adam and Eve, day and night, the plants and the animals, the sea and the sky in 6 days. Christianity is a religion. It takes FAITH to believe what you believe, and it will never, ever be proven scientifically, and quite frankly, I dont want it to be.

Fair enough. This is actually the first few sentences you've made in FYM that don't require huge amounts of facts to back up that you can't provide. You're right it all comes down to faith.

To me, the athiest approach of the big bang is hard to believe. To me, THAT takes faith to believe. Creationism is a no-brainer to me and surely millions of Christians across the planet. You're right that creation will never and cannot be proven, but science isnt everything.

If you consider yourself a Christian and want to believe in evolution, knock yourself out, but thats not for me. I refuse to accept the notion that my great great... grandfather was a monkey.

This is the part that kills me though. To think science is only an athiest view is ridiculous. Absolute bullshit.

Yes you have taken the "no-brainer" approach to existence.

And for you to say "if you consider yourself a Christian..." is absolutely insulting.

 

[upabove]

If you've read one creationism vs evolution thread on the internet , you've read em all. Pretty much a pointless argument. And how come the "creation" view is almost always that of the Christian religion, and not say Hinduism?

I think this subject is just to stir the pot, and not to really create discussions.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I agree...

Only if the two sides just sit in their corners and throw poo at each other.

So, I have a question for the middle of the room:

Evolution is not necessarily "the atheistic position," and for the billions of Catholics around the world, for instance, God-driven evolution ("evolutionary creationism," a.k.a., "theistic evolution"--not to be confused with the incompatible "intelligent design") is the Vatican-approved standard.

To those in the "6 Days" corner, what is so objectionable about this belief? What I take from the creation/Adam and Eve story is that 'how' is so not important, it's all 'why', right? I mean, if Genesis just opened with simply "God created the earth and everything on it" and then jumped straight into Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve, would it make any difference to the point of it? I don't think so. If the 'how' is almost completely insignificant in regards to the point/message of the story, then why is it so beyond the realms of belief - or so offensive to suggest - that perhaps it is compacted into a simple, succinct, straight to the point story to simply lay the foundation for the message? Even if you strongly believe in the strict 6 x 24hr day idea, there's no detail in it at all, when you know that if you were there you'd be watching a lot more happening than in the information the Bible gives you. I mean there's no "Let there be light. This also created warmth, which created blah blah, which etc etc." That's not scientific jumble whatever that goes against your faith, that's just what would have happened. Am I making sense? So you know it's been summarised for you anyway, so why would it be difficult to at least have room - even if you don't believe it yourself - for the opinion that perhaps it was dramatically summarised? And we're talking about God here - what's the difference between a split second and a million years anyway, considering minutes/weeks/years are a human creation? Sorry, starting to lose track...

I guess my questions are: What is it that makes you strongly believe that the 6 Days is literally a 6 x 24hr period that only encompasses the events that are listed? Simply because it's God and it's the Bible? There are loads of 'leap of faith' examples in the Bible that are only so because of a lack of detail, and the lack of detail only exists because it's irrelevant to the point of the story. If 'how' - aside from that "God did it" - is clearly irrelevant, then why are variants on 'how' such an offence to your faith?

 

[BVS]

Only if the two sides just sit in their corners and throw poo at each other.

Well I think that was the point of the original post I quoted...

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Yes, I know, but the thread doesn't necessarily have to go there or stay there.

 

[BVS]

But that's where it usually goes, and that is what I was saying...

Nothing more.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Yaba-daba-deuteronomy

Here exhibits show the Grand Canyon took just days to form during Noah's flood, dinosaurs coexisted with humans and had a place on Noah's Ark

yay, then i sent upon thee two prophets...

 

[A_Wanderer]

Yeah, there is. If I tell two people there's a tiger in the bathroom, behind the closed door, the person who believes that is taking a leap of faith, but the person who thinks that's an absolutely ridiculous suggestion for a bunch of logical reasons is still, without being able to know 100% for sure that there isn't a tiger in the bathroom until the door is opened, basing it on faith. One just might be a more grounded faith than the other, in that one might be believing it because I say it is so and I don't normally make this shit up, and the other disbelieves based on the grounded logic that (a) where the fuck would I get a tiger from in the suburbs of Sydney (b) how the fuck would I get it into the bathroom (c) why is there no other evidence of it outside the bathroom - no trailer attached to my car, no muddy tiger prints or fur in the hallway, me being in possession of all my limbs (etc etc etc).

Not believing in a religious sense is exactly the same leap of faith as believing - seeing as if it wasn't, it wouldn't be because you were able to actually prove the non-existence, but you can't just as much as 'they' can't prove the existence - so it's a leap for both of you.

Not the same thing because there is evidence that tigers exist and it is within the realms of possibility for one to exist behind that door. For an omnipotent supernatural being it requires what is thought possible to be wrong and that puts it at a very different threshold.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Well I think that was the point of the original post I quoted...

Which was to divert one away from another thread.

 

[martha]

For an omnipotent supernatural being it requires what is thought possible to be wrong and that puts it at a very different threshold.

What the hell does this mean?

No really, what are you trying to say?

 

[redhotswami]

Janey Mac!! I'm surprised this debate still exists. I'm always taken aback by how many people still take the Bible literally. Especially when I see them sitting down and enjoying some crabs at supper.

Anyway, I was wondering how the human soul figures into evolution? I understand it is very explicit in the evolution of the human body, but I don't think I've heard anything about the soul.

 

[LJT]

You know all this your side is wrong/right thing, just strengthens the opposition to each really.

Spiritualism of some kind, of something greater than ourselves will always exist, it's pointless to try to destroy it, if you can't reason God(s) out of existence, they/it exist outside reason, stick to getting rid of the bad practices etc associated with the religions that get built around them.

 

[U2democrat]

You know all this your side is wrong/right thing, just strengthens the opposition to each really.

Spiritualism of some kind, of something greater than ourselves will always exist, it's pointless to try to destroy it, if you can't reason God(s) out of existence, they/it exist outside reason, stick to getting rid of the bad practices etc associated with the religions that get built around them.

Exxxxxxxxxxcellent post.

 

[martha]

Anyway, I was wondering how the human soul figures into evolution? I understand it is very explicit in the evolution of the human body, but I don't think I've heard anything about the soul.

Can I get back to you when I'm more lucid? I tried to type somethingh just now, but I can barely think straight due to end-of-school-year wipeout.

 

[toscano]

Why derail a perfectly good Iraq thread?

What does any of this have to do with gay marriage ?

Anyhow, anyone who feels strongly about Creationism, strongly or negatively, should read Darwin. Anyone felling the same about Evolution should read the Bible.

That will shut everyone up good and nice for some time to come.

Oh, and creationsim/intelligent design is a complete and total crock.

 

[redhotswami]

Can I get back to you when I'm more lucid? I tried to type somethingh just now, but I can barely think straight due to end-of-school-year wipeout.

I feel your pain

 

[redhotswami]

You know all this your side is wrong/right thing, just strengthens the opposition to each really.

Spiritualism of some kind, of something greater than ourselves will always exist, it's pointless to try to destroy it, if you can't reason God(s) out of existence, they/it exist outside reason, stick to getting rid of the bad practices etc associated with the religions that get built around them.

Wow that was really well said!

 

[Snowlock]

Evolution is a theory that elegantly explains the scientific facts better than other explanations for the diversity of life on Earth and has been verified by the major discoveries in biology and geology since it was first put forward.

Creationism and intelligent design each hold the fallacy that they depend on untestable elements thus rendering them unscientific and unworthy for discussion on the same level.

Discuss.

The big problem with evolution is that it violates a fundamental concept of physics; conservation of mass. It states mass can neither be created nor destroyed. Evolution is a linear theory in that it demands a point A for something to get to a point B. Except, if mass is never created or destroyed, there can never be a point A.

Evolution always needs a beginning; prior to the single cell organism there was water; prior to water there was Oxygen and Hydrogen (atmosphere); prior to atmosphere there was the Earth; prior to Earth there was.. etc etc until we're back to the Big Bang which violates conservation of mass (along with a host of other physical laws).

 

[LJT]

^^Thanks, people just need to let others come to their own conclusions about what is, or what is not out there, the attempts to vehemently disprove or destroy belief systems, whether it's forcing someone to believe in something spiritual or forcing someone to accept the all powerful wisdom of science, just creates very bitter people on either side.

Creationism is daft but as long as it is not taught in any science classroom i'm generally okay with it.......

These arguments are fun reading even if they are as predictable as the tides

 

[anitram]

Creationism is daft but as long as it is not taught in any science classroom i'm generally okay with it.......

But that's the essence of the issue here. None of us would be discussing it were it not for a significant number of conservatives who tried (and in some cases succeeded) to get this into the curriculum. This is not an issue that would have otherwise had any mileage. People don't sit around and discuss the merits of the Hindu teachings of creation/destruction because it's a religious belief and because nobody's trying to impose that religious belief into biology class.

 

[Irvine511]

But that's the essence of the issue here. None of us would be discussing it were it not for a significant number of conservatives who tried (and in some cases succeeded) to get this into the curriculum. This is not an issue that would have otherwise had any mileage. People don't sit around and discuss the merits of the Hindu teachings of creation/destruction because it's a religious belief and because nobody's trying to impose that religious belief into biology class.

but haven't we learned that Christianity is "truer-er" than all the other religions ever?

logically, if we are to question evolution, we will arrive at Christian Creationism.

 

[anitram]

The creation museum outside of Cleveland claims:

There were posters explaining just how coal could be formed in a few weeks as opposed to over millions of years and how rapidly the Biblical flood would cover the earth, drowning all but a handful of living creatures. The flood plays a big part in the museum's attempt to explain away what we see as millions of years of natural processes. There was also an explanation as to why, with only one progenitor family, it wasn't considered incest for Adam and Eve's children to marry each other. Apparently there was less sin back then, and therefore fewer mutations in their DNA. Evidently sin, not two copies of the same recessive trait, gives rise to congenital birth defects.

I don't care what your religious beliefs are - I, too, was raised a Christian. But this is simply absurd and I refuse to call it anything but.

 

[2861U2]

If 'how' - aside from that "God did it" - is clearly irrelevant, then why are variants on 'how' such an offence to your faith?

I'm not offended if somebody believes in evolution. If they want to teach evolution in classrooms, fine. People like me will just shrug it off because we have a different belief of what happened. I thought the point of this thread was to explain why I believe in creationism, which I did, not to bash those who believe in evolution, or vice-versa.

As someone said, yes, there are things in the Bible that seem far-fetched to have really happened (Jonah in the fish, Moses parting the sea, not to mention all the miracles of Jesus), but I think those things, the large displays of God's power really did occur, and that includes creating the universe. I also agree that parts of the Bible are to be taked literally and parts metaphorically. But when the Bible says, for example, that there were 3 times when God spoke to Jesus (literally spoke, audibly, and the people around Jesus heard Him too), I cant help but believe that that really happened. It's too awesome to not want to believe.

I hope this doesnt turn into a "why Christianity is wrong/stupid" debate.

 

[Irvine511]

can someone show me where it says that Adam and Eve were married?

what kind of ceremony did they have? did she wear Vera Wang?

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

can someone show me where it says that Adam and Eve were married?

what kind of ceremony did they have? did she wear Vera Wang?

scandelous

 

[Snowlock]

But that's the essence of the issue here. None of us would be discussing it were it not for a significant number of conservatives who tried (and in some cases succeeded) to get this into the curriculum. This is not an issue that would have otherwise had any mileage. People don't sit around and discuss the merits of the Hindu teachings of creation/destruction because it's a religious belief and because nobody's trying to impose that religious belief into biology class.

You have to at least be equitable in this. Maybe conservatives wouldn't have had to try (and in some cases succeed) to get this into the cirriculum if liberals hadn't tried (and in most cases succeeded) to eridicate God from classrooms, holidays, goverment offices, etc.