Why do you believe in Creationism or Evolution?

[emmy27sf]

so why do u believe in evolution or creationism???

[NuclearTBag]

To me anyone that believes in creationism is ridiculous, it isn't scientifically founded on. Where there has actually been research that has gone into the theory of evolution, the theory is fasifiable, where as creationism is just well, GAWD made it that way, which is a non-answer. evolution you can actually refute and debate LOGICALLY, where as if you try to debate creationism there is no scientifically backing, but there is plenty of scientific disagreements. Where as in the theory of evolution, there is actually scientific backing, and there are some scientific arguments(which don't hold water) against it, Creationism came from the Buybull, which is full of contradictions, immorality, and has stupidity to spare. The theory of evolution comes from scientific studies that took a lot of work and effort from REAL PEOPLE not cloud men did. Creationism neither holds up in the arena of science or logic.

[Illyricum]

No scienticfic backing? What do you call Louis Pastuer's studys that disproved spontaneous generation? How do you explain the the fact that the earth is perfectly placed, that if it were just little bit over here or a little bit over there that we'd either burn up or freeze? Have you ever studied the complexity of the human body, of a plant or animal, or even of a microscopic cell?

[Didymus]

Just noting that Pasteurs experiment disproved only the then common idea that 'lower organisms', specifically bacteria, spontaneously formed. The famous experiment itself was actually extremely simple: he placed nutrient in flasks with curved stems, so that air could get in, but not any airborne bacteria. When no bacteria formed in the flasks with the curved stems, while bacteria took hold rapidly in nutrient exposed to the possibility of airborne bacteria, it was decided that even bacteria come only from parent bacteria, something modern evolutionary theory does not ignore.

Naturally, this does NOT refute the possibility of self replicating molecular polymers, which is abiogenesis in the modern sense. i reccomend the opening chapters of Strickberger and Monroe's Evolution text for a basic run down of abiogenetic scenarios.

The reference to earths location is irrelevant. IF life did evolve then it would naturally be tuned to the environment it finds itself in: the very definition of natural selection. Had life evolved on mars it would be suited only to mars.

And yes, I have studied the complexities of humans, plants, and unicellular organisms.

[Yahweh]

How do you explain the the fact that the earth is perfectly placed, that if it were just little bit over here or a little bit over there that we'd either burn up or freeze?

I think you are inferring just a bit too much (it is the same phenomena that happens when someone says "God is throwing stones from the sky", and I observe a meteor shower. Does this prove God is throwing stones from the sky? No, of course not, that would be an overloaded preposition). The Earth's orbit is elliptical, it travels more than "a little bit off" in both directions, and in reality there is a lot more leeway than you think.

You'll be absolutely amazed under the conditions by which life will form. It is not at all like life is somehow "finetuned" (how "fine" is "fine" anyway?), in reality it seems it will readily form under the harshest conditions (from the extremophiles in our natural springs, to bacteria in the antarctic, to bacteria which survive miles above the atmosphere). And given conditions, life will form and become best adapated to the environment. I'm not sure what you are implying by observing the placement of the earth.

Have you ever studied the complexity of the human body, of a plant or animal, or even of a microscopic cell?

It depends on what you mean by "complex".

Evolution is all about making things better adapted for their environment, and so we should see very complex things (either by necessity or by accident does complexity arise).

I hope I'm not stretching the limits of logic, but most designers strive for "simplicity", and if there are things which you consider very "complex"... then I dont think that implies designer. Of course, there is no need for that to be the case, but still I never did get how complexity indicates design.

[Bobby]

First and foremost, I have yet to find an answer to either one of the possibilities that is 100% unarguable. I haven't found an answer, or explanation that defines one of the two arguments in a way that would render them completely accurate. In all fairness of the truth, I suppose there may be a third, or fourth possibility that we are not even considering. That our human minds haven't comprehended.
However, considering what my pea-brain has been able to comprehend as reality, along with the use of logic, I can only lean toward evolution as the truth, based merely on common sense. Of course I will admit that even evolution has its limits in terms of where it began. What initiated the initiation? But in my mind, even though I can not answer that, I tend to believe that the answer exists more likely than an answer to; 'who created the creator?'
If I chose to believe in a creator, I would have no choice but to ignore numerous facts. I cannot do this. In order to come to any conclusion about any particular theory or proposal, one must break things down.
If a particular point is made, it is necessary to consider the foundation of that point. What principles support it as truth? Where did the point come from? What makes it true? Or false for that matter. Quite simply, if things are broken down to the point that all of the components of what the 'point' is based on are inarguable, then chances are, it is true.
In determining the truth, too many individuals make the mistake of allowing their emotions to influence them. Bad idea.
As far as I am concerned, I can argue, logically, every point made by theology. Every argument, in essence, comes back to the same principle.
I cannot argue every point made by the theory of evolution. Energy exists. Energy takes form. There is no human desire that interferes with that point. There are no emotional needs being met by that acknowledgement in the same way that human beings have an emotional need to believe in a creator, or divine intervention for that matter. More people than not, believe in a creator out of fear.

[perfessor]

Before I get to the question for debate, a little background on myself:

I was raised as a Christian in an upper-middle class family. We went to church every Sunday (Presbyterian, if you’re keeping score), and I always felt that my spiritual growth was important. I high school, I got involved in the youth group, which was run by the very caring and committed pastor, along with other adults. We had serious talks about God and Jesus, organized food drives, did light household maintenance for some of the older members of the congregation, went on work trips to rural West Virginia and Wisconsin, and had a lot of fun in the process. At no point – I mean not one single time, did anyone suggest to me that I had to believe that 100% of the Bible was the 100% inerrantly true word of God. It would have seemed then, as it does now, to be the difference between believing in things, and believing in ideas. As an example: Noah’s Ark is a thing, whereas “Forgive those who trespass…” is an idea. In my world, the ideas were far more important.

As I moved on into adulthood, it was with a growing sense of surprise and resentment that I kept hearing that I wasn’t really a very good Christian after all. Regarding the activities of the group, I was told that “it is not by works that you are justified…” (Paul, somewhere in Corinthians, or maybe Romans). Whereas “insomuch as you have done it to the least of these – you have done it unto me” (Jesus) was of lesser importance. The loudest Christians were telling me that I voted for the wrong people (a sin); that I had the wrong ideas about war (I thought Jesus was a pacifist, I guess I was wrong); and worst of all, I was a scientist who was willing to believe in experimental proof over Biblical dogma. In short, I believed the wrong things.

So here is my question: Why is it so important that we believe the Creation myth? As a historical account it is patently absurd. Yet behind the events is a dramatic account of man’s stumbling steps toward spirituality – seeking God, hiding from God, seeking God again. If you try to believe in the details, they just get in the way.

I had a co-worker tell me that evolution had to be wrong; the earth was only 10,000 years old according to the Bible, not nearly enough time for evolution to happen on the scale that science proposed. I kept waiting for the punchline – but he was serious. “But what about the fossil record – the geological evidence, astronomical, the overwhelming scientific evidence?” His answer was simple – “That’s the way God made it. He made the universe look old, but told us it was young. We can believe either science or God.”

Had I been a quick thinker, I could have posed him this riddle: If I were to assert that the universe was actually only five minutes old – that God created us, with all our memories, five minutes ago – there is no way you could disprove it. If the reply was “But that’s ridiculous!” – well, you took the words right out of my mouth.

[wollery]

As has been pointed out by other posters, offering a choice between creationism and evolution is a false dichotomy. The choice should be between creationism and abiogenesis. Having said that I voted evolution, since I adhere to that scientific theory, and do not believe that there was any external intelligence involved in the formation of life on Earth (or anywhere else in the Universe for that matter!).

How do you explain the the fact that the earth is perfectly placed, that if it were just little bit over here or a little bit over there that we'd either burn up or freeze?

I think you are inferring just a bit too much (it is the same phenomena that happens when someone says "God is throwing stones from the sky", and I observe a meteor shower. Does this prove God is throwing stones from the sky? No, of course not, that would be an overloaded preposition). The Earth's orbit is elliptical, it travels more than "a little bit off" in both directions, and in reality there is a lot more leeway than you think.

Far more leeway, the Earth could be almost as close to the Sun as Venus, or further out than Mars, and we'd still have a habitable planet. Of course life wouldn't be exactly the same, but it would still be possible.

My problem with the argument from complexity is very simple. Whatever created us must have been at least as intelligent and complex as we are. And if that is the case then it must also have had a creator which was even more complex, which must have had a creator.......... ad infinitum (et nauseum).

[otseng]

Before I get to the question for debate, a little background on myself:

I appreciate your disclosing of your background.

So here is my question: Why is it so important that we believe the Creation myth? As a historical account it is patently absurd. Yet behind the events is a dramatic account of man’s stumbling steps toward spirituality – seeking God, hiding from God, seeking God again. If you try to believe in the details, they just get in the way.

If the creation account is a myth, then there's no reason to believe in it.

So the question then becomes, is it really a myth? Is Adam/Eve, Tower of Babel, and the Flood all some allegorical tale? Some people believe so (even some Christians).

I had major hangups with the Creation/Flood story after I became a Christian. But, as I investigated it further, it made more and more sense. And I do believe Creationism has some points of rational basis, and not just blindly to be accepted by faith.

And it is one of the reasons I created this (sub)forum. To at least expose people to the idea that Creationism is a rational model. I don't expect to win over any evolutionists. But, hopefully some will at least see it's not entirely a crackpot idea.

[perfessor]

Otseng wrote:

If the creation account is a myth, then there's no reason to believe in it.

There is a difference between believing in something, and drawing inspiration from it. For me, it is useless to consider the creation stories to be literal truth. But considered as myth, there is meaning at a psychological or spiritual level

To take one example you mention: The story of the Tower of Babel, as a historical account, explains why different cultures have different languages. But there are alternate explanations for this, which were not available early on: microevolution provides an explanation for how separate and isolated populations would have such differences.

[rebecca]

As has been pointed out by other posters, offering a choice between creationism and evolution is a false dichotomy. The choice should be between creationism and abiogenesis. Having said that I voted evolution, since I adhere to that scientific theory, and do not believe that there was any external intelligence involved in the formation of life on Earth (or anywhere else in the Universe for that matter!).

How do you explain the the fact that the earth is perfectly placed, that if it were just little bit over here or a little bit over there that we'd either burn up or freeze?

I think you are inferring just a bit too much (it is the same phenomena that happens when someone says "God is throwing stones from the sky", and I observe a meteor shower. Does this prove God is throwing stones from the sky? No, of course not, that would be an overloaded preposition). The Earth's orbit is elliptical, it travels more than "a little bit off" in both directions, and in reality there is a lot more leeway than you think.

Far more leeway, the Earth could be almost as close to the Sun as Venus, or further out than Mars, and we'd still have a habitable planet. Of course life wouldn't be exactly the same, but it would still be possible.

My problem with the argument from complexity is very simple. Whatever created us must have been at least as intelligent and complex as we are. And if that is the case then it must also have had a creator which was even more complex, which must have had a creator.......... ad infinitum (et nauseum).

What he said, x2