why are you a creationists?

[Fluffy]

He told me that I believed in evolution based on the same faith he believed in creationism.

I made that mistake (in more general terms) not that long ago and so I can understand why he might think that. I believe it was JerryL who set me right on that one though .

 

[Quiddity]

If you believe God is guiding the universe you are more of a creationist because evolution states that new species are the result of random mutation.

You can still have God with random mutation.

 

[Fluffy]

You can still have God with random mutation.

One of the best possible scenarios that include both God and evolution is as follows:

God changed non-life into life.
God had no knowledge of the end result of the evolution that then followed (ie humanity)

Both of these are necessary in order for "random mutations" to be applicable.

Edit: Sorry Victor, I appear to be stalking your posts at the moment lol If I get annoying do say!

 

[Ezzedean]

hmm... I have a situation for all of you.

Say you were walking in the dessert, all alone and there isn't a person in sight. Your walking and walking and walking, and then suddenly u find a gold watch laying in the sand infront fo you. When you pick it up, what do you think is gonna run through your head?

Maybe you might think, what time is it? lol.... but I doubt you care about the time, most of you i'm assuming will wonder where the watch came from. Am I right?

 

[Ezzedean]

I highly doubt that any of you will believe that the watch was a result of random mutation, and your gonna wonder who put it there. The same reason I believe someone would have put that watch there is the same reason I believe God created this earth and put it where it is...... I just want to know why the Earth can't be like that watch?!

Peace guys
Ezzedean

 

[Quiddity]

One of the best possible scenarios that include both God and evolution is as follows:

God changed non-life into life.
God had no knowledge of the end result of the evolution that then followed (ie humanity)

Both of these are necessary in order for "random mutations" to be applicable.

Edit: Sorry Victor, I appear to be stalking your posts at the moment lol If I get annoying do say!

It's cool. Thanks for the addition.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

Let me put it this way - the Bible is the structure of my belief - if it is correct then all the facts will fit my belief system. If not then my belief system must be altered. A fact is simply there - is it something that doesn't have to be interpreted, it is simply there, undeniable. Like fossils - no-one argues they don't exist -because they are there plain to see.
What about the age of the earth? No human was there to witness the earth being formed and to be able to say what age the earth was. Therefore the age of the earth cannot be a fact - it has to be calculated, and because no-one was there, the dating methods have to assume certain things in order to calculate the age. Assumptions are unprovable - we take them on faith. Depending on the assumption, depends on how sure we are that it is correct. The flaw comes when the assumption is based on an already existing belief system - therefore the age of the earth can be made to fit the belief system because of these assumptions. If the belief system is evolution - then you know before hand that the earth has to be millions and millions of years old to give evolution enough time to do all that it has already done. Therefore if the results give a really old date, then you will accept that your assumptions have been correct.
However if your belief system is a young earth and you arrive at a old result - you will recognise your assumptions as incorrect, therefore the result will be incorrect.

I'm not about to go into radio dating but science has tried to find ways of cutting down on these assumptions by new dating methods. Google dating methods and assumptions and see what you come up with. Or better still take a dating method, study how it works, and try and see the assumptions that it works on.

In regards to your first bolded section above, Sir, Evolution is not a beleif system. It is a scientific theory, and is the most widely accepted scientific theory on how and why we and all current living creatures came to be. This "theory" has more scientific acceptance than, and more strong evidence in favor of it, than does the current theory of gravity. I encourage you to push a coffee cup (empty of course) off your desk, as you sit at your computer. If it fails to fall to the floor, then come talk to me about evolution.

In regards to your second bolded section above, I encourage you to take your own advice. Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. The age of the Earth, the age of the Sun and the age of the universe are not in dispute amongst any scientific community. The only people arguing against the currently accepted figures of the age of these celestial bodies are biblical literalist/Young Earth types, who choose to ignore the absolutely overwhelming panacea of evidence in favor of an old earth and an even older universe.

An old earth is not a backwards theory in the same way that a young earth is. Young Earthers decide the Earth is young, then either ignore the evidence to the contrary or desperately try to fit physical evidence into their way of looking at the world, so that it supports their preconceived notion of the age of the Earth. The old age of the Earth accepted by all geologists I have ever heard of not employed by AIG, was not arrived at by this backward method. Using the scientific method, scientists have determined what the age of the Earth is, using repeatable, and refutable scientific testing methods. They did not decide what they wanted the age to be, and work backwards, they did the research and came to the conclusion, based on the evidence at hand, that the age of the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

B.

 

[roli]

Why am I a creationist, When I first believed in God it was the conviction in my heart that I had made some mistakes in my life and questioned as to how or if I will escape the consequences.Not knowing what or if there were any.
By running from God denying,justifying and refuting the existence of God I only intensified the guilt,misery and uneasiness within.
I then began to search for Him instead of refuting.
I realised there was more to this life then what I perceived with my senses. I pursued God to find Him and my belief led me to accept Christ as savior and from receiving Him ,I recieved revealtion and insight into the assurance of His existence without facts or foreknowledge of scientific evidence.
His Spirit and creation confirms His word and that is the order He works from.
When you believe (trust rely)in Him accept (he is who he says)him and receive (take him for your own) he then confirms himself to that believer by his spirit.

That is by itself unexplainable to say the least but a miracle nevertheless
I did not use reason or logic but conviction proved to work for me in verifying his existence.
I purposed to read God's word and things started to just jump out of the bible and make sense.From accuracy of His word to prophecies,to scientific facts supporting the bible.to logical reasoning.

It was later in life I could seee the logic when I look around me at the creations of man such as cars, buildings , pencils,bobby pins from the simplistic creations/inventions to the complex that everything made has intent, design,logic,
One need not have to look outside our universe or window for that matter so see the order in this universe and that by pure reason and logic we can say for sure there was intelligent design all over.
Maybe not personally indentify with a living personal God that he was the cause immediately but looking at just what was created ,God says in Romans." mankind will be without excuse on judgement day just from what is created".
If we look at man's creations/design's and see the intent ,purpose and design behind it and don't strive to disprove what is so obvious of intelligent design,why would we look at nature ,life, matter the sun ,moon , stars,water cycle ,plant life,to vegetation/seed,reproduction etc and spend our whole existence trying to disprove intelligent design
To think that things just evolved on there own through gradual progression and random chance is an insult to anyone's intelligence.
Just becuase someone does not know the painter does prove ther was 'nt one,the very painting is proof. Let circular reasoning begin.

What a purposeless life we would live

 

[robtex]

You can still have God with random mutation.

You can hold a belief in a God and evolution, but not an abrahamic God. The Gods of Judiasm, Christianity and Islam specifically are ones that have created mankind as the species they have a personal relationship with and as the zenith of creation. Evolution rejects the notion that man is the zenith of creation.

Secondly in the three religions it is accepted by those faiths that God is guiding the univese and its creations. Random mutation is the process of an unguided universe in terms of organic biology.

Many creationists seem to understand these two notions fairly well and many openly state that those are reasons they reject evolution. it is interesting the theists of those religions whom say they believe in both evolution and an abrahamic God without acknowledging the dictomoy of the two points mentioned.

 

[Endless]

Secondly in the three religions it is accepted by those faiths that God is guiding the univese and its creations. Random mutation is the process of an unguided universe in terms of organic biology.

That is possibly the worst arguement ever. Firstly - random to who? To us it may seem totally random - but that's not to say that God doesn't guide it. You cannot argue this point - i could throw sweets from one position to another and then another and then another - science could come along afterwards and determine that the sweets are random in the way they are dispersed. But it doesn't change the fact that i threw them where i wanted to throw them.

 

[Opethian]

To think that things just evolved on there own through gradual progression and random chance is an insult to anyone's intelligence.

No, your lack of knowledge is an insult to evolution.

 

[joeboonda]

I believe in the Bible, the first thing it says is, "In the beginning God CREATED the heaven and the earth." Good enough for me.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I believe in the Bible, the first thing it says is, "In the beginning God CREATED the heaven and the earth." Good enough for me.

Actually, that is not the first thing it says, but I'm not at all surprised that you think so.

 

[Ceridwen018]

The Gods of Judiasm, Christianity and Islam specifically are ones that have created mankind as the species they have a personal relationship with and as the zenith of creation. Evolution rejects the notion that man is the zenith of creation.

I disagree. The theory of evolution does not attempt to answer any sort of philosophical question, such as, the importance of man over other species. It merely serves to explain the mechanism for the growth and change of our earth and universe. I find it completely acceptable to assert that God and evolution can cohabitate peacefully within the same head.

What about the age of the earth? No human was there to witness the earth being formed and to be able to say what age the earth was. Therefore the age of the earth cannot be a fact - it has to be calculated, and because no-one was there, the dating methods have to assume certain things in order to calculate the age.

Heh, heh--if the age of the Earth could be calculated, then it most certainly would be a fact. The truth is that the exact age of the Earth cannot be calculated. However, scientists have concluded to a confident ballpark estimate, and lemme tell ya, its nowhere near 6000 years.

Endless, you mentioned something earlier about "scientific facts fitting with creationism." I am not sure how you would define creationism, but by my definition, I assure that the facts most certainly do not fit.

If you want to believe in creationism for whatever reason, then good for you! Who am I to try and tell you that your belief is wrong? However, you cannot try to make your belief be something it is not. Creationism is not scientific. That's not necessarily a bad thing, its just the way things are. You just need to acknowledge your belief for what it is. If you could prove creationism scientifically, you wouldn't have any need for faith, now would you?

 

[Utheran]

Why can't evolution support the idea of man as the zenith of animals? If we look at what makes man more than animals we can tell by observation that it is not by our form, after all our form is lesser in many ways to any variety of animals, this evolution does support. But if we say what seperates man is his mind, which i'm sure most people will agree with, then evolution has nothing to say about the place of man. It is true humans have the most developed brain, so if we decide that the mind is the most important feature to have then man would be the zenith of animals. And since our mind is what allows us to have this discussion it would be difficult to say that it isn't very important.

 

[Endless]

However, scientists have concluded to a confident ballpark estimate, and lemme tell ya, its nowhere near 6000 years.

Yes, but this doesn't change the fact that it is not a fact

Endless, you mentioned something earlier about "scientific facts fitting with creationism." I am not sure how you would define creationism, but by my definition, I assure that the facts most certainly do not fit.

Go on, enlighten me with a fact that does not fit?

 

[Ceridwen018]

Yes, but this doesn't change the fact that it is not a fact

As of right now, the ballpark estimate is considered to be a fact.

Go on, enlighten me with a fact that does not fit?

6000 years doesn't fit.
Woman having one more rib than man doesn't fit.
Lack of micro/macro-evolution doesn't fit.
Birds before terrestrial organisms doesn't fit.
Dense vegetation before terrestrial organisms doesn't fit.
And last but not least, where have all the dinosaurs gone?

Realize that my defintion of creationism may be quite different from yours. If you believe that your god uses evolution as it's mechanism for creating the earth and all of the organisms within it, then I think that that's just fine. If you take the story of Genesis literally, however, then my post applies to you.

 

[Endless]

As of right now, the ballpark estimate is considered to be a fact.

Incorrect - how can an estimate be a fact? An estimate is a guess, guesses are not facts. It may be considered a fact in the sense that science accepts it - but in the real sense of the word 'fact' it is not.

6000 years doesn't fit.

Depends on how you look at things and the assumptions behind radiodating. Lots of facts are interpreted inorder to give an age to the earth.

Woman having one more rib than man doesn't fit.

:biglaugh:I'm not even going to answer that.

Lack of micro/macro-evolution doesn't fit.

Perhaps that's why scientists still use the two terms in their scientific papers then?

Birds before terrestrial organisms doesn't fit.

Not a fact - an interpretation.

Dense vegetation before terrestrial organisms doesn't fit.

An interpretation, not a fact.

And last but not least, where have all the dinosaurs gone?

Gone extinct the last time i checked.

Perhaps facts should be presented? No?

 

[kevmicsmi]

I disagree. The theory of evolution does not attempt to answer any sort of philosophical question, such as, the importance of man over other species. It merely serves to explain the mechanism for the growth and change of our earth and universe. I find it completely acceptable to assert that God and evolution can cohabitate peacefully within the same head.

Wouldnt the theory of Evolution suggest that cockroaches are the zenith, since they could most probably survive anything minus total earthly destruction?

 

[joeboonda]

Actually, that is not the first thing it says, but I'm not at all surprised that you think so.

Okay, its the first verse in MY Bible anyways. Genesis 1:1.