-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I believe in Creation ...and Evolution
- Thread starter Lady Crimson
- Start date
EnhancedSpirit
High Priestess
Actually signaling is how I would describe my communication with God. The study of science is what made me believe in God, not the churches I was forced to go to as a child (they actually turned me away from God.) I consider myself like a cell in the body of something way bigger.truthseekingsoul said:
Passerby said:
Are you telling me that you think God was standing on the earth when he did all this. No I don't think so. So we cannot say what focal point he was referencing from. And if you want scriptual back up for what I say, the bible says that there is nothing new in the eyes of God. Everything has happened before.(I will get back to you with exact references)
Which suggests that 'creation' as discussed in the bible has in fact occurred over and over several times during the course of earth's actual history. And in the beginning of earth's history the earth may have rotated on it's axis at a slower rate of speed.
And if you say he created the morning and evening before he made the sun. That is more proof that you can not rely on man's definition of a day, but God's.
How did I get into a debate arguing with both sides?:help:
Passerbye
Member
Oh realy! Then what does this mean?
Genesis 1:1-2
Sounds like he is on earth to me.
Yes, which It seems to me is what he based the sun off of.
You're not arguing with both sides. I am on your side with certin things, and not with others. I will stop with this line of questioning for now and we can discuss it later if you wish.
Passerbye
Member
This seems to come from this:
Ecclesiastes 1:8-10
It was writen by Solomon in context to nothing new from generation to generation. Mr. Wise Man Solomon was smart. He couldn't find anything new to learn I guess. I did not find anything else with the words "nothing new" in it. If you find it could you point it out to me?
Ceridwen018
Well-Known Member
Well, I just don't understand it as a theory. I mean, other theories have different processes that explain how they work, for example, the processes of cellular respiration and photosynthesis explain how eukaryotes make ATP, and the process meiosis and fertilization explain how reproduction happens, etc. These processes can be observed and tested and whatnot. My question is, what processes does creationism use to explain itself? Evolution uses the process of natural selection, but I've never heard of an actual scientific analysis for creationism.passerby said:
I don't know if the following site will help, Ceridwen, but it seems to be a 'sensible' one.Ceridwen018 said:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html
Passerbye
Member
That is a nice little list. Like the denominations in christianity, I think a conclusion can be found to the differences and most of them can be thrown out after that conclusion is reached. We just need to talk it out to see how the different interpretations came about, and weather they were correct or misunderstandings. It takes time.
Ceridwen018
Well-Known Member
It was a nice link, and thank you michel, but it wasn't quite what I was looking for. Nothing in that list provided any sort of scientific explanation for creationism.
Maybe the simplest way to answer this question would be for you to just explain why you personally believe it, Passerbye.
Maybe the simplest way to answer this question would be for you to just explain why you personally believe it, Passerbye.
Passerbye
Member
Because it fits the Bible and science (at least to my knowledge of current science) at the same time. It seems to fit in perfectly. The Bible seems to me to have stayed the same and yet still fits perfectly in with science. Science and the Bible have disagreed in the past but science seems to be curving back in towards the Bible again. Even if science and the Bible start disagreeing again I would still stick with it because they have disagreed before and it has all worked out so far. I prefer sticking to it rather than changing my mind at the sight of every new theory. I know two things as fact, the Bible and data. The rest, so far, is just speculation to me. There doesn't seem to be any 100% proof yet. So I will stick with my explanations, although I don't really need them. My knowledge, I know, is small. My hypotheses mean very little to me. They could be disproved tomorrow by scientists, just for the situation to be up in the air again in a month or two. I dont know what will happen with science. It will keep advancing I suppose. Then again, strange catastrophes could happen tomorrow, and all the scientists could be beheaded because they cant understand it and the people take it as they are liars. It has happened before, and society doesnt seem like it has changed very much, other than the technological breakthroughs such as sneakers with lights in there heals. Whod a thunk it? Anyway, basically I am saying that to me the bible is first, the data is second (since it is sometimes likely to have been tampered with), and the hypotheses are third. The rest
matters not.
Now... did I explain that properly or not? I don't know... maybe.
Now... did I explain that properly or not? I don't know... maybe.
Ceridwen018
Well-Known Member
We're certainly on the right track! I'm interested in the current science that supports creationism. I've never seen any before--could you post some links or something?
EnhancedSpirit
High Priestess
"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts." (Sign hanging in Einstein's office at Princeton)
DavyCrocket2003
Well-Known Member
Ceridwen018 said:
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)
If religion was supported by scientific proof, wouldin't that defeat the purpose? There would be no faith. If everyone knew that the gospel was true, what would be the challenge in believing it?
Davy Crocket, I like your answer. I've always felt the same way, that if all the answers were right in front of us, there would be no role for faith. It would be a cerebral knowledge of God, rather than one that incorporated our spirit and soul to be connected with God. I think God shows us just enough of God's existence to allow us come to belief, while still allowing faith to play a role, and prevent us from taking his existence for granted.
I, like the OP, believe in creation by God as well as evolution. These two beliefs are at opposite ends of a spectrum. They are not either/or. Do you know there are many different beliefs that fall along a continuum, from the Flat Earth Society at one end to "atheist" evolution at the other?
I'll post a link to a site that outlines the variety of beliefs, you can read for yourself and find where you "fit in" along the spectrum.
I, like the OP, believe in creation by God as well as evolution. These two beliefs are at opposite ends of a spectrum. They are not either/or. Do you know there are many different beliefs that fall along a continuum, from the Flat Earth Society at one end to "atheist" evolution at the other?
I'll post a link to a site that outlines the variety of beliefs, you can read for yourself and find where you "fit in" along the spectrum.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html
This is the link I was referring to. It provides a basic outline of the different beliefs from Creationism to Evolution, and the stops along the way. If anyone knows of any positions about creation that are not on this continuum, please let me know.
Each belief is briefly described, and it's not comprehensive. But it allows you to at least see the different stances out there on this debate, and do follow up on your own.
This is the link I was referring to. It provides a basic outline of the different beliefs from Creationism to Evolution, and the stops along the way. If anyone knows of any positions about creation that are not on this continuum, please let me know.
Each belief is briefly described, and it's not comprehensive. But it allows you to at least see the different stances out there on this debate, and do follow up on your own.
Ceridwen018
Well-Known Member
That's a very good point, you're absolutely right. However, you can't believe that and still try to claim creationism as a valid scientific theory. You're admitting that creationism has no scientific basis, and that you believe in it purely out of faith, which is perfectly fine, but some people don't like to call things as they really are.
Oh, bullpuckie. This is classic distortion in that it focuses on entirely the wrong thing.NetDoc said:
On what basis would anyone make such a claim? Where do yo see scientists escewing faith, intuition, gut feelings, wild-*** guesses, all the things that serve as ill-defined underpinnings for the scientific endeavor? The issue is not, and never has been, whether scientists make leaps of faith. The issue is, and always has been, that the result of science is not faith-based. I don't care whether you get your theory from a prayer session or a fortune cookie so long as the theory is a testable explanation employing tests that are not reliant on faith.
Perhaps you're right. Given that it happens and is 'tacitly admitted', just which part of "Scientists rarely like to admit [it]. They do it all of the time, without ever seeing it." do you agree with?pah said:
Pah
Uber all member
I was thinking that imagination and curisity were equivlent to "faith". Science would therefore not call it faith but the principle holds.Deut. 32.8 said:Perhaps you're right. Given that it happens and is 'tacitly admitted', just which part of "Scientists rarely like to admit [it]. They do it all of the time, without ever seeing it." do you agree with?
