Who is Behind the Evolution vs Creationism Debate?

[Notedstrangeperson]

Which group do you think is the driving force behind the evolution / creationism argument?

This poll assumes that you think that evolution and religion are compatible - or at least that there's no reason that religious people can't accept evolution.

 

[Iosias]

Generally I think it's creationists who claim evolution is inherently atheistic, however, there are a minority of atheists who claim evolution disproves religion.

 

[juvenissun]

Which group do you think is the driving force behind the evolution / creationism argument?

This poll assumes that you think that evolution and religion are compatible - or at least that there's no reason that religious people can't accept evolution.

Why do you still have question about this issue? It has a logical answer.

The one appeared later challenges the existed value. Is this good enough?

 

[KWCrazy]

This poll assumes that you think that evolution and religion are compatible - or at least that there's no reason that religious people can't accept evolution.

Why would it/you make that assumption?
Those who believe that evlouion and the Bible are both correct don't understand either one.

The debate exists because both sides believe they are coorect; atheists who believe that the physical world is all that exists and creationists who believe as the Bible states that God created the world and the life that dwells upon it in six days. The two ideas ARE mutually exclusive if you understand them.

 

[juvenissun]

Why would it/you make that assumption?
Those who believe that evlouion and the Bible are both correct don't understand either one.

The debate exists because both sides believe they are coorect; atheists who believe that the physical world is all that exists and creationists who believe as the Bible states that God created the world and the life that dwells upon it in six days. The two ideas ARE mutually exclusive if you understand them.

No. If we really understand it, they must not be mutually exclusive.

 

[KWCrazy]

No. If we really understand it, they must not be mutually exclusive.

Really?
How could God create man in His image from the dust of the earth and breathe life into him on day six if man evolved over billions of years?

How were there trees bearing fruit on day three when the sun didn't exist until day four?

How did everything evolove from base pairs of animals on an ark after a flood in which "The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth."

Tell me how you understand that these things, which cannot both be true, are true? Jesus believed that the Bible was true and accurate. He even mentioned Noah by name, and spoke of the first man and woman whose marriage was ordained by God.

How do you "understand" both without calling at least one false?

 

[TheBeardedDude]

The debate exists because creationists have set themselves up as the victims. They claim to have something that is science, but then claim that the scientific community rejects them on the basis of religious discrimination or some other such conspiracy. They then set up their own "museums" and pseduoscience "research" institutes to further their religious agenda while falsely equivocating that creationism and evolution are both mutually exclusive (which I would agree with) and equally likely (which is demonstrably false) while also both being science (which isn't true) or by evolution not being science (which is as laughable as asserting that the global science community is engaged in a cover-up conspiracy).

 

[KWCrazy]

The debate exists because creationists have set themselves up as the victims.

Amazing distortion. False, but amazing. The debate exists because there are two conflicting views that each side believes to be true.

They claim to have something that is science,

Nobody ever claimed creation was scientific.

but then claim that the scientific community rejects them on the basis of religious discrimination or some other such conspiracy.

The "scientific community" and the "creation community" begin with a different premise and therefore reject each other's conclusions.

They then set up their own "museums" and pseduoscience "research" institutes to further their religious agenda while falsely equivocating that creationism and evolution are both mutually exclusive (which I would agree with)

The Creation Museum exists as a commercially viable way to tell a particular story from the Creationist point of view, and to offer evidence that the other side refuses to acknowledge exists. The same evidence can be seen differetly depending on your original belief. If you believe the Bible, you will find evidence to support it. If not, you'll find evidence to support your denial.

and equally likely

I'm unaware of anyone saying they are equally likely.

while also both being science

There is a lot of scientific research being done in the name of creation science, but it all acknowledges that the Creation occurred as a result of God's command.

or by evolution not being science

Who says it isn't science? The evidence shows that it's scientifically unsound, but it's still the only explanation atheists have.

 

[Aman777]

Noted:>>Who is Behind the Evolution vs Creationism Debate?
Which group do you think is the driving force behind the evolution / creationism argument?

Dear Noted, Christians know that God's Truth is the truth, in every way, and they also know that the accepted scientific truth does NOT match God's Truth. Godless Evols try to get Christians to accept their false views, but Christians keep believing what God told us in Genesis. The Lies of Godless Evolutionism drive the debate since they force feed their false Theory to our children in Public Schools.

Noted:>>This poll assumes that you think that evolution and religion are compatible - or at least that there's no reason that religious people can't accept evolution.

Christians will NEVER accept the false view that we evolved from Chimplike creatures, for they KNOW that humans are different from animals because animals do NOT have our higher intelligence level. We came from Adam, the first Human, and our destiny is to have dominion over every other living creature, including Chimps. Adam came FIRST, and did NOT evolve from ANY other living creature. Genesis 2:4-7

The Evol LIE that we evolved from other living creatures is UnScriptural, and this knowledge destroys the TOE, which is the object of every Evolism devotee. God tells us man was FIRST, and Godless Evols tells us we were the LAST. Choose this Day to believe God or the UnScriptural Lies of Evolutionism.

And make no mistake about it Godless Evolutionism is embraced by SOME of the advocates of Theistic Evolism, and it's followers spend their days fighting against God's Truth. May they come to their senses before their false theory is exposed as the Lie it most certainly is.

In Love,
Aman

 

[jilfe]

According to the Bible:

Evolution only looks like it does due to the curse from the fall of mankind, before the entrance of the curse, the physical laws were in perfect harmony.

Scientists seem to forget, they are studying the cursed creation, so naturally there going to end up with false natural conclusions, if it were possible to study the sciences before the curse, then they would all agree to the truth of God the creator.

Why ,because not only would the sciences prove it out, but everyone would be in perfect harmony with God.

That's why science is so misleading, if they don't take into consideration the curse that came upon creation, they seem to forget this very vital fact, (unless they choose to ignore it,), but I think most scientists, just seem to forget about this, (due to the enemy), and should consider this fact in there researches, to help them better undserstand there sciences they are studying.


　
　
　

 

[vossler]

This poll assumes that you think that evolution and religion are compatible - or at least that there's no reason that religious people can't accept evolution.

Quite a leap to make. I certainly don't see the two as compatible in the least. The truth is never compatible with a lie. I checked other because I believe Satan is behind the debate.

 

[jilfe]

Of course he is, he's always trying to sew dissension among christians, that's the only thing he has to cause his atheistic teachings to creep into the church.

Rom:16:17: Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

1Cor:1:10: Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

 

[juvenissun]

Really?
How could God create man in His image from the dust of the earth and breathe life into him on day six if man evolved over billions of years?

How were there trees bearing fruit on day three when the sun didn't exist until day four?

How did everything evolove from base pairs of animals on an ark after a flood in which "The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth."

Tell me how you understand that these things, which cannot both be true, are true? Jesus believed that the Bible was true and accurate. He even mentioned Noah by name, and spoke of the first man and woman whose marriage was ordained by God.

How do you "understand" both without calling at least one false?

Two apparently incompatible features could be included in a feature of higher level.

Or, less elegantly, one feature could be included in another feature.

Example: We have "the truth" from God, but some humans see evolution, but some humans see creation. It is also possible that evolution is included in creation, or vice versa.

 

[ChetSinger]

I also checked "other" because I see evolution as one of the biggest Satanic threats to the church.

With all respect to my evolution-agreeing brethren, evolutionary history requires no God anywhere.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Why do you still have question about this issue? It has a logical answer.

The one appeared later challenges the existed value. Is this good enough?

I decided to re-post my thread up here because I suspected the results from my poll down in the Society section was being skewed by the large number of atheist users.

Speaking of which -

TheBeardedDude: Sorry, you're not allowed to post up here. Origins Theology is a Christians-Only section.

 

[gluadys]

Which group do you think is the driving force behind the evolution / creationism argument?

This poll assumes that you think that evolution and religion are compatible - or at least that there's no reason that religious people can't accept evolution.

I thought of saying both groups equally, but you can count on your fingers the number of prominent atheists who claim to support their position on the basis of evolution. Most don't.

So, I went for creationists who claim evolution is atheistic. In numbers, money & media their impact far outweighs that of atheists. Especially among Christians.

 

[mark kennedy]

Which group do you think is the driving force behind the evolution / creationism argument?

This poll assumes that you think that evolution and religion are compatible - or at least that there's no reason that religious people can't accept evolution.

Creationism, aka Creation science has always been an apologetic response to Darwinism. It did not exist previously except as an occasional natural theology like Paley who argued that complex living systems required a designer:

In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. (...) There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use. (...) Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation. (William Paley, Natural Theology 1802)​

The animosity between atheism and Christian theism is not the result of crusading religious zealots storming the castle of science or modern academics. Christians where forced into an apologetic stance due to the onslaught of atheistic philosophies determined to expunge all theistic inferences from science and academics.

The atheists have tried in vain to dismantle Christian theism and served only to expand the academic based for Christian apologetics. It's the best thing that could have happened to atheistic philosophies because if they don't have theistic thought to attack they have no substantive merit intellectually.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT ON


This thread has undergone a clean up. As a reminder, the site rules include this:

Do not post in the forums reserved for Christians only, unless you are truly a Nicene Creed, Trinitarian Christian (please see our Statement of Faith to know exactly what that is). If you wish to discuss unorthodox doctrines, you may do so in Unorthodox Theology.

MOD HAT OFF

 

[mark kennedy]

Quite a leap to make. I certainly don't see the two as compatible in the least. The truth is never compatible with a lie. I checked other because I believe Satan is behind the debate.

Well you can't blame the genuine article of science, it's uniformly neutral with regards to origins. Blaming religion seems pointless since it's essential Christian theism and has been since the first line of the Scriptures was written at the foot of Sinai. I have to wonder though, could Satan have some hand in this. It would make sense of why Creationists are always being attacked by scoffers and skeptics:

Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. (Eph. 6:11,12)​

I have always believed that an apologetic defense of the Christian faith was the only response to Darwinism.

Good to see you posting again BTW.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[adadrian]

i think evolution is silly they cant prove where this big bang came from.