Why Creationism over Evolution? Bring on the arguments (Creator, Earth)

[meogi]

Originally Posted by Daquine

The point I'm trying to make is that nobody can prove either points of the argument. We are all mortal after all. It's all simply a matter of belief.

One problem, predictions. Having an idea that makes no predictions and having an idea that predicts what we observe have differing levels of credibility. (NOTE: I'm not saying we can predict evolution [seive, not ladder], but the 'small pieces of evidence' are predictable and observed.)

But you're right, how much do we really know about anything? Everything is belief... but beliefs are not equal in my opinion. The belief that I will wake up tomorrow is more reliable than the belief that I will not. At least until I pass through quite a bit more time. (Based upon observing other people and waking up at some point every time I've slept so far.)

[blueinchains]

Originally Posted by Alex_G

Literal scripture belief on such things as the creation story, all things that are mutually exclusive with scientific propositions, i just want to see some of the justifications people have for believing them.

Never mind really, i felt this was going to flop and not get answered lol ..shame

People, I believe, justify their belief in fiat creation for the same reason that evolutionists justify their belief in evolution. Perception. And belief. There are valid arguments for both points, hence this thread and forum.

[UnTheist]

Originally Posted by blueinchains

People, I believe, justify their belief in fiat creation for the same reason that evolutionists justify their belief in evolution. Perception. And belief. There are valid arguments for both points, hence this thread and forum.

Nope. Creationism has no evidence and does not follow the scientific method.

[camanintx]

Originally Posted by Daquine

I think this statement would ring the most true for me. Although, as a Christian, I would go with creationism as part of the belief system.

I see alot of evolutionists, atheists and the such state matter of factually that evolution is the only way and they think they got the evidence to proof it. The proof being the pictures of the "residue of the big bang" and the "knowledge" of how old fossils are (and among other things) and all of those small pieces of "evidence" can't truely be proven. Was anybody there during the Big Bang? Was anybody around long enough to witness the evolution of Earth's speices? No they weren't.

Of course, logically, I can't say I would know the same about creationism. No one was around when God just went *click* and created everything.

The point I'm trying to make is that nobody can prove either points of the argument. We are all mortal after all. It's all simply a matter of belief.

You are right, ideas like the big bang and universal common descent cannot be proven and more than genesis and the flood because, as you said, we were not there.
But evolution through natural selection has been proven through direct observation. Has anyone observed a new organism spring into existence out of nowhere? The idea that every organism shares a common ancestor may only be theory, but it is derived from the same principles which explain why bacteria become resistant to antibiotics also explains why all life on Earth share certain characteristics.

[Daquine]

Originally Posted by camanintx

You are right, ideas like the big bang and universal common descent cannot be proven and more than genesis and the flood because, as you said, we were not there.
But evolution through natural selection has been proven through direct observation. Has anyone observed a new organism spring into existence out of nowhere? The idea that every organism shares a common ancestor may only be theory, but it is derived from the same principles which explain why bacteria become resistant to antibiotics also explains why all life on Earth share certain characteristics.

I agree that evolution is there, as you noted in your example of bacteria and antibacteria. And of course, we notice variations on a single species of creatures like cats. Lions, tigers, mtn lions (aka cougars) are an example. They all adapt to the environment they live in.

I've come to one particular theory of the coexistance of faith of a higher power and evolution. The theory is God created everything we see, and has given His creatures, (us humans and all the other animals of the earth) the ability to adapt to their surroundings in an evolutionary sense.

[Super Universe]

Creationism over evolution?

They are both in play.

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by Hope

I would substitute the words "self importance" with "self worth." In a godless, evolutionary universe, the human has neither importance nor inherent worth, so anything goes: murder, rape, torture, etc. After all, if we are only animals, why should we act any differently than animals?

Couple of important points, Hope.
1. The theory of evolution (ToE) is NOT the theory that there is no God. It is a scientific theory about how species originate. No scientific theory has anything to say about the existence of God, Which is outside the scope of scientific inquiry.
2. ToE is not a theory about the universe, only about diversity of species.
3. This is called the naturalistic fallacy. Understanding the truth about how different species come to be does not tell us anything about how we should act. Morals do not come from natural science.

Whereas, humans who are created in the image of God have an inherent worth that makes murder, rape, torture, etc. detestably evil and wrong.

I would take issue with this, since God commands his followers to do all these things, and they do, on a regular basis.

Evolutionists have no fixed reference point from which to claim any evil act is actually evil. They have no true basis for saying humans deserve to be treated with respect, or that human life is valuable, when humans are merely a product of mindless chance.

ToE is not a life philosophy or basis for moral reasoning. It is a scientific theory about Biology. There is no such thing as an "Evolutionist" in the sense in which you are using the word here. The correct word is Biologist. Then there are those of us who accept scientific thinking about evolution and other things.

Speaking for myself, understanding the web of connection of all living things has caused me to become more compassionate, not less. Similarly, understanding how all people are fundamentally similar and related has helped me view all of us with greater compassion.

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by sandy whitelinger

Is creationism a theory?

No, not in the scientific sense.

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by Hope

Sure. But if the universe has no intrinsic meaning, then trying to differentiate between love and hate is in itself a meaningless and pointless endeavor.

This is interesting philosophical territory, but has no bearing on ToE, which is Biology, not philosophy, and, in particular, has no bearing on the question of whether it is true or not.

I'll turn the question around on you----do you believe you have more worth than a cockroach? If so, why?

Good question. I have more worth to myself and to those who love me, perhaps more to some other human beings who relate to our common heritage, but no, I don't think that there is an objective measure out there somewhere on which I rate higher than a cockroach.

It if helps any, I see the great web of existence as more interrelated and dynamic.

If not, then what is the difference between someone stepping on a cockroach and killing it and pointing a gun at you and killing you? From an evolutionary standpoint, both actions are equally justifiable, because you cannot convincingly show that your life is more valuable than a cockroach's when you and the cockroach both evolved from the same primordial soup.

Do you see why it's nonsensical to talk about an evolutionary viewpoint on a moral question? It's analagous to, I don't know, a theological viewpoint on auto mechanics? See what I mean? Evolution isn't about morals, it's about biological diversity. Beyond that, I'll just say that morality in general is one of the most challenging areas of philosophy, and deserves another thread at least.