What do you believe regarding creation and evolution?

However it happened- God did it!!!

I voted. By I'm pretty tired of all the polls around here.

I went with post #1, but I disagree slightly - I think the world is more like 5000 years old, not 6k. 10k is too old

Oops, waht's microevolution

A species can be bred with the same species and 'create' new breeds, obviously... dogs, for example. Noah didn't take 200 kinds of dogs on the ark.

Didn't notice that difference, hehe.

But I don't acll that "evolution" anyways. Too confusing

Sadly, due to the fact that I only have access to the net during work hours, I don't have the time to get involved in discussion on the threads.  I am the archetypal lurker.  *lurk lurk*

However, I lurves polls.  More polls please!!  Hooray for polls. 

 

Cheers,

Prax

A heroic effort at organizing the many possible answers into categories. There's a bit too little room for uncertainty; I have no idea whether or not abiogenesis happened, or whether God created the first life, or what.

I picked other. My views:

God, as described in the bible may have created the universe.

Big bang theory looks like the best model we have at present to describe the history of the universe.

The universe is very old, on the order of several billion years, but cosmologists haven't nailed down the figure to any great degree of accuracy. It's most likely to be between 10 and 20 billion years.

Several experiments have shown that molecules that are necessary for life can form under conditions that occur or are likely to have occured in nature. Other experiments have produced simple self replicating molecules. There is still alot of work to be done here, but initial results in biochem research support the abiogenesis theory. Life may have started this way, but there is no way to test it, all that we will ever be able to say is that it is possible.

How ever life started, the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution explains the current diversity of life. It is backed by massive amounts of evidence and is supported by numerous experiments. I fully accept the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. None of the other theories of evolution fit the data

I picked #8, but I think "by chance" is slightly misleading with respect to the origin of life. That is because most people wouldn't consider that chemical reactions happen "by chance."

I picked #2 "God created the universe (@ 6-12 thousand years ago) and life; I accept microevolution but otherwise disagree with the theory of evolution".

I believe in adaptation and evolution (or even devolution) within species. I do not believe that humans evolved from any other species.

God clearly says in Genesis, "Lets make man in our image".

So clearly Adam was created on the spot. Also note the hint of trinitarianism in that scripture.

I picked #4 God created life and used evolution. Why? Because that is the best explanation for what happened. It is WAY too presumptuous to assume the world is only a few centuries old, especially when it contradicts every bit of scientific evidence out there, and there is no way life came about from just random chance, apart from God.

I picked #7, "There may be some creative force or intelligence that started our universe, but it is not the God of the Bible. I fully accept the theory of evolution"

The only caveat is I don't completely dismiss that it may or may not be the God of the Christian Bible. However, I think that it may be a variation on the God of the Bible, as well as the gods of many other religions (basically, I think it's far too egocentric to wholly accept any single religion as being the absolute Truth).

That said, I believe if there were such a Supreme Being, it would likely be neutral and not all-knowing. From that perspective the Earth could be nothing more than a giant petri dish ("Let's see, take a little of this, mix it with a little of that... Oh look, little people! How interesting. I wonder what would happen if I poked one of them...").

I picked #2, since that seems to be the most scientific. Micro-evolution just might be possible (though it would only be a remixing of the genetic information already present in the organism - no new information), but evolution at the macro level has never been observed, and remains mere speculation, and to believe in it (without the guidance of God) would be for that person to commit intellectual suicide. Saying that the organisms of earth evolved to what they are today from lower organisms isn't supported by the fossil record, which shows that the creatures of Earth appear fully formed and disappear the same way. Evolutionists can go on and on all day about "what ifs," but the fossil record is the only way of knowing what actually happened. As it is, the evidence for creation is compelling while the evidence for evolution is found lacking even more so today than in Darwin's day (some fossils thought to be examples of transitional states were later found out not to be).

As far as saying that there might be one God, and that all religions worship the same God, that simply cannot be true. Religions all over the world claim equally exclusive truths to be true, and as such, they cannot all be true. God would not tell a lie to one people and tell the truth to another people (what's the point?). There's no reason to seek the truth other than God being truth itself (Since the truth does not always help the survival of a people/species, nor is it always a pleasant or easy thing to deal with. Truth has always been seen as objectively "good"), and being truth itself, God cannot lie. There can only be one truth (and truth is what corresponds to reality). I know some people might get their panties in a twist when ever Christianity claims to be true and as a result, says the other faiths are false, but I wouldn't have it any other way. We all do the same thing every time we claim something to be true. When ever you say something is true, you are also saying that anything contrary to that is false, and are thus being exclusive. Truth, by nature, is exclusive. I see no reason to put any stock into a belief system that does not claim to be true.

Jedi: Blind men and the elephant. It would be possible for all these people to be worshipping the same God, but to all have mistaken impressions about said God.

Jedi, how is you're response the most scientific??? You said the earth is only 6000 years old! That is not scientific, in fact, it goes completly against science! The earth is 4.5 billion years old, science proves it.

Originally posted by Jedi
When ever you say something is true, you are also saying that anything contrary to that is false, and are thus being exclusive. Truth, by nature, is exclusive.

Click to expand...

I disagree. When dealing with opinions, interpretations, etc, truth can be very subjective.

For example, suppose I'm holding an apple and I claim it is red. You look at the apple and claim it is gray. Obviously, only one of us is right. What I don't know, however, is that you may be colour-blind. So, to you, the apple is gray, not red, because you have no way of seeing that colour.

Some people see things from one perspective, others see things differently. And some people believe something so strongly they, in a sense, become "colour-blind" and are unable to look at it from any other perspective.

Of course, there are people who will tell outright lies, but for this argument, I'd assume everyone feels they are telling their own truth.

#8 most closely reflects reality, not that closely reflecting reality plays a huge role in this forum, i.e., 6kya is too great an age for the earth rofl.

Other - I believe in God.

What and who and when and where and why are currently unknown.

Jedi: Blind men and the elephant.

Click to expand...

That's a very deceptive analogy I've heard countless times before. The main belief of an atheist is that there is no God what-so-ever, while the main belief of a Christian is that Jesus is God in the flesh. These two critical points of these faiths cannot both be true. There are countless other examples (reincarnation versus Christianity, polytheism versus monotheism, etc). The elephant analogy would only work if these theologies complimented each other. Instead, they do the exact opposite, and exclude and contradict one another. Christianity (as well as other faiths) say that what the other "blind men" are feeling is not God.

It would be possible for all these people to be worshipping the same God, but to all have mistaken impressions about said God.

Click to expand...

It's possible that people worship a perceived God, but not the same true God (for those who actually believe in only one God, if any at all). Some people have worshiped statues (idols) saying they were gods. The God of the Bible opposes this practice and says these idols can do nothing. The fact that people worship some sort of God is by no means a basis to say that they are worshiping the same God, or even a real one.

Jedi, how is you're response the most scientific??? You said the earth is only 6000 years old! That is not scientific, in fact, it goes completly against science! The earth is 4.5 billion years old, science proves it.

Click to expand...

You come across as an amateur evolutionist. I haven't seen much of your kind around lately. First of all, Creationism is not limited to what you're referring to: Young Earth Creationism. A great number of Creationists are Old Earth Creationists (Evolutionists merely like to pick a fight with the Young Earth ones it seems). Secondly, you beg the question by merely saying "science proves it." Science does not prove the earth is 4.5 billion years old. There is evidence for both a young and old earth, though I personally think the stronger of the two sides is an Old Earth.

Do you have something against Creationists? You see, I ask this, because I feel most evolutionists do (even though most of the time, they don't even know that not all Creationists believe in a Young Earth). I find it interesting how the Fathers of Modern Science were Creationists. I'll provide a list for you to look over:

Johann Kepler (1571-1630), celestial mechanics, physical astronomy
Blaise Pascal (1627-1662), hydrostatics
Robert Boyle (1627-1691), chemistry, gas dynamics
Nicholas Steno (1638-1687), stratigraphy
Isaac Newton (1642-1727), calculus, dynamics
Michael Faraday (1791-1867), field theory
Charles Babbage (1792-1871), computer science
Louis Agassiz (1807-1873), glacial geology, ichthylogy
James Simpson (1811-1870), gynecology
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884), genetics
Louis Pasteur (1822-1895), bacteriology
William Kelvin (1824-1907), energetics, thermodynamics
Joseph Lister (1827-1912), antiseptic surgery
James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879), electrodynamics, statistical thermodynamics
William Ramsay (1852-1916), isotopic chemistry

This is, of course, omitting the forerunners of these scientists who also held to supernatural creation. People like Roger Bacon (1220-1292), Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543), and Galileo Galilei (1564-1642). I find it very difficult to label the Fathers of modern science as "unscientific" because they were creationists.

I disagree. When dealing with opinions, interpretations, etc, truth can be very subjective.

Click to expand...

We're not dealing with opinions or interpretations. What we're dealing with are the cold, hard, scientific and philosophical facts. Truth is never relative - only opinions and interpretations lie in the field of subjectivity.

For example, suppose I'm holding an apple and I claim it is red. You look at the apple and claim it is gray. Obviously, only one of us is right. What I don't know, however, is that you may be colour-blind. So, to you, the apple is gray, not red, because you have no way of seeing that colour.

Click to expand...

Ah, yes, some people back in my High School days tried to come up with clever little situations like that. However, now you're talking about perceived truth (what people see to be true). Let's get this straight: perception has nothing to do with what the truth actually is (God will continue to exist whether I believe in him or not). The fact of the situation is that the apple is not gray simply because I'd be color blind. I'm quite sure if we really wanted to find out the truth, we could use scientific instruments that deal with light and spectrums to tell how the light is reflecting off of the apple. Not only that, but if I were color-blind, I would know my conclusions concerning color are void since I have no way of knowing one color from another. This situation is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of truth. The question is not "What do you see," but rather "How does the light reflect off the apple?"

I was hoping I'd get some agnostics/atheists/relativists/universalists here with me. I'm glad I wasn't disappointed. I do so love talking with you people.

My point wasn't that all religious beliefs might be true (which I think is silly), but that I don't feel that the "different people believe different things" argument disproves the existance of the God the various people believe in. Proof that some of my beliefs about a person are false is not proof that the person does not exist.

As to what is or isn't scientific: For purposes of reasonable assumptions about reality, modern science has shown the world to be very, very, old; we have very good evidence for 4.5 billion years. I would love to see a plausible scientific piece of evidence showing a much different number, but no one has provided one.

Your argument about scientists who lived some time ago is unpersuasive; it is not unscientific not to believe in an old earth, it is unscientific to do so *when confronted with the data now available*. Many of those scientists predate most of the technological and scientific advancements which make current estimates possible; obviously, they had no reason to form these opinions.