Creation/Evolution; Which is true?

[legomania100]

First, I would like to make an important definition. That of "Religion"

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

If I may be so bold as to paraphrase, that means that a religion is what you believe about how you got here, what life is all about, and how you should behave.

Christianity is a religion.
Islam is a religion.
Pantheisim is a religion.
Creationism is a religion.
Evolution is a religion.

Suprised at the last one? Here, I'll show you why it is a religion.

All of the above views theoretically explain how we got here, in an unobsevable way. Christianity says "God Created," Evolution says, well, "It happened by accident"

Each gives the value of a person. Christianity says that each person is of immesurable value. Evolution says that we all came from dirt, and therefore that is our value.

Both Christianity and Evolutionary Theory tell what happens when a human dies too. One says that the person dies and goes to either heaven or hell, the other that the person decomposes and becomes ingested as worm chow.

Notice, that I have not projected any arguments between the two views of Creation/Evolution, just stated a few of thier inherent worldviews with basic logic and deduced that Evolutionism is as equally a religion as Creationism.

Now, with that in mind, I would like to debate which religion is backed up by science. For example, what evidences are there for both sides? Does good science,(2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.) support one side or the other?

I understand that this is a very heated topic, and would ask that everybody who contributes refrain from profanity, name calling, and insulting of intelligance. These only raise tempers and really have no place in a debate, expecially a science debate.

Of course, if someone breaks basic etiquitte, please ignore them.

I look forward to seeing what comes of this!

[ImAnEvilCarrot]

I wasn't aware that "chance" and "accident" were the same thing.

I hope I accidentally win the lottery.

[fishingoncredit]

Like the old saying goes “Don’t Take Life Too Serious, Because Your Not Getting Out Alive” The only real ultimate seriousness we should be concerned with is, what becomes of our soul after death.
And without shame, I do believe there is A God of Creation, and whether he done it with His Spoken word, a big bang, through evolution, natural selection or however and weather he done it in six days, six thousand years, six million, or six billion years, does not interest me to argue, because we can not understand it no better than Columbus could understand all the Man made wonders of today.
It just leaves me in awe when trying to comprehend all the wonders left today, of the universe, which is still beyond our knowledge and understanding.
I also believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and Our Savior and also I believe in the Holy Spirit of God. Also, I believe in Heaven and Hell and at one of these places is where the rewards we earn on earth is awaiting us and it’s left to each individual to determine whether we believe and accept him or not.
I also believe the possibility of life on other planets and the reason it’s not told about in the bible or any other acceptable place is because it would have upset the order of life we have here on earth.
But I believe it will be revealed to us in due time when our comprehension level has reached that degree.
With all this said, No one knows the beginning as a whole and as we each look at the few fragments of evidence we do have,there is just not enough to to make an absolute conclusion.

[Fish]

Regarding the opening post, it is very obvious by your writing where your bias lies. First of all, the theory of evolution teaches nothing about what happens to a human after death, so your argument is based on a false premise.

Secondly, the theory of evolution is not a religion; it is not religiously-based. The theory of evolution is in the field of science in part because of the empirical study of physical, tangible evidence. Creationism on the other has no basis in science whatsoever. It is a religiously-based idea with no tangible evidence whatsoever.

[Fish]

legomania100 wrote:

Christianity says "God Created," Evolution says, well, "It happened by accident"
Each gives the value of a person. Christianity says that each person is of immesurable value. Evolution says that we all came from dirt, and therefore that is our value.

Yes, the objectivity is oozing from your words.

[dukdodgers]

legomania100 wrote:

First, I would like to make an important definition. That of "Religion"
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
If I may be so bold as to paraphrase, that means that a religion is what you believe about how you got here, what life is all about, and how you should behave.
Christianity is a religion.
Islam is a religion.
Pantheisim is a religion.
Creationism is a religion.
Evolution is a religion.
Suprised at the last one? Here, I'll show you why it is a religion.
All of the above views theoretically explain how we got here, in an unobsevable way. Christianity says "God Created," Evolution says, well, "It happened by accident"
Each gives the value of a person. Christianity says that each person is of immesurable value. Evolution says that we all came from dirt, and therefore that is our value.
Both Christianity and Evolutionary Theory tell what happens when a human dies too. One says that the person dies and goes to either heaven or hell, the other that the person decomposes and becomes ingested as worm chow.
Notice, that I have not projected any arguments between the two views of Creation/Evolution, just stated a few of thier inherent worldviews with basic logic and deduced that Evolutionism is as equally a religion as Creationism.
Now, with that in mind, I would like to debate which religion is backed up by science. For example, what evidences are there for both sides? Does good science,(2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.) support one side or the other?
I understand that this is a very heated topic, and would ask that everybody who contributes refrain from profanity, name calling, and insulting of intelligance. These only raise tempers and really have no place in a debate, expecially a science debate.
Of course, if someone breaks basic etiquitte, please ignore them.
I look forward to seeing what comes of this!

Your take on the Theory of Evolution is incorrect. ToE is scientifically the best explanation for what we have observed; and we have observed it. There are many transitional fossils despite what the ID'ers will have you believe. We may not see it happen in front of our eyes, a case that many ID'ers use. We can measure change over time though, and there is plenty of evidence for it.

Evolution does not place a value on any entity. Evolution does not explain what happens to us when we die either. Evolution is not concerned with that study.

Your "basic logic" is flawed and your obvious bias is glaring.

You need to educate yourself on the ToE should you want to discuss it rationally.

[Dryad]

dukdodgers wrote:

<quoted text>
Your take on the Theory of Evolution is incorrect. ToE is scientifically the best explanation for what we have observed; and we have observed it. There are many transitional fossils despite what the ID'ers will have you believe. We may not see it happen in front of our eyes, a case that many ID'ers use. We can measure change over time though, and there is plenty of evidence for it.
Evolution does not place a value on any entity. Evolution does not explain what happens to us when we die either. Evolution is not concerned with that study.
Your "basic logic" is flawed and your obvious bias is glaring.
You need to educate yourself on the ToE should you want to discuss it rationally.

Hi Duck, how ya doin'?
I wanted to clarify something. You used the term Itelligent Design interchangeably with Creationism. Wouldn't Intelligent Design be more closley related to Theistic Evolution, or does ID deny the possibility of evolution?

[dukdodgers]

Dryad wrote:

<quoted text>
Hi Duck, how ya doin'?
I wanted to clarify something. You used the term Itelligent Design interchangeably with Creationism. Wouldn't Intelligent Design be more closley related to Theistic Evolution, or does ID deny the possibility of evolution?

ID believes the structures of life were created by an intelligence (God) not by natural selection. ID believes that things are the way they are because the "Designer" made them that way.

Theistic Evolution allows for scientific process. Theistic Evolutionists don't believe in the accounts of Genesis. TE's believe that evolution is a continuation of the event that created life.

[bloodyvisigoths]

"Creationism" is just a Christian way of injecting their religion into the public school systems.

Christians want--and in some cases even demand that--their religious beliefs be taught in the public schools. But there's that damned irritating little separation of church and state thing called the First Amendment that keeps getting in their way. So instead of accepting this fact, they try every duplicitous argument that they can conceive of in order to proclaim evolution a religious belief based solely on faith, and then claim that if *this* religion is taught and paid for with our tax dollars, then creationism should be granted "equal time."

It's a Christian con game. And an extremely transparent one at that. No one is falling for it, but they keep on trying. Who was it, Goebbles (is that how the name's spelled? i fergit) who once stated that if you repeat a lie long enough to enough people, it will gradually be accepted as truth? That's what they're hoping and praying for.

If the Christian cause is a just one, as they claim it is, then why do they have to constantly lie for it? How just is a cause that one has to lie for?

[dukdodgers]

Dryad wrote:

<quoted text>
Hi Duck, how ya doin'?

I am doing well, you? Busy today at work, just now got to log on.

[fishingoncredit]

legomania100 wrote:

Evolution says that we all came from dirt, and therefore that is our value.

1. Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

[dink]

ImAnEvilCarrot wrote:

I wasn't aware that "chance" and "accident" were the same thing.
I hope I accidentally win the lottery.

Not a chance.

[Dryad]

dukdodgers wrote:

<quoted text>
ID believes the structures of life were created by an intelligence (God) not by natural selection. ID believes that things are the way they are because the "Designer" made them that way.
Theistic Evolution allows for scientific process. Theistic Evolutionists don't believe in the accounts of Genesis. TE's believe that evolution is a continuation of the event that created life.

I would differ on your definition of Theistic Evolution. I think of my belief as Theistic Evolution. I allow for evolution AND still believe in the accounts of Genesis. I could explain to you how I reason this out but I'm afraid I would get picked on by both sides for my views. I assure you though, that they are quite well thought out.

[fishingoncredit]

bloodyvisigoths wrote:

"Creationism" is just a Christian way of injecting their religion into the public school systems.
Christians want--and in some cases even demand that--their religious beliefs be taught in the public schools. But there's that damned irritating little separation of church and state thing called the First Amendment that keeps getting in their way. So instead of accepting this fact, they try every duplicitous argument that they can conceive of in order to proclaim evolution a religious belief based solely on faith, and then claim that if *this* religion is taught and paid for with our tax dollars, then creationism should be granted "equal time."
It's a Christian con game. And an extremely transparent one at that. No one is falling for it, but they keep on trying. Who was it, Goebbles (is that how the name's spelled? i fergit) who once stated that if you repeat a lie long enough to enough people, it will gradually be accepted as truth? That's what they're hoping and praying for.
If the Christian cause is a just one, as they claim it is, then why do they have to constantly lie for it? How just is a cause that one has to lie for?

Your IPS location shows Rescue Ca. and I do agree that it is really in the need of being saved with comments like this coming out of it.
God bless your soul.

[Dryad]

bloodyvisigoths wrote:

"Creationism" is just a Christian way of injecting their religion into the public school systems.
Christians want--and in some cases even demand that--their religious beliefs be taught in the public schools. But there's that damned irritating little separation of church and state thing called the First Amendment that keeps getting in their way. So instead of accepting this fact, they try every duplicitous argument that they can conceive of in order to proclaim evolution a religious belief based solely on faith, and then claim that if *this* religion is taught and paid for with our tax dollars, then creationism should be granted "equal time."
It's a Christian con game. And an extremely transparent one at that. No one is falling for it, but they keep on trying. Who was it, Goebbles (is that how the name's spelled? i fergit) who once stated that if you repeat a lie long enough to enough people, it will gradually be accepted as truth? That's what they're hoping and praying for.
If the Christian cause is a just one, as they claim it is, then why do they have to constantly lie for it? How just is a cause that one has to lie for?

The term "Seperation of Church and State" is not found in the constitution. In fact, it was Baptists who first brought up the concern in a letter to Thomas Jefferson. Mr Jefferson, in a returned letter, affirmed an interpretation of the First Ammendment that would guarentee the "seperation of church and state." Although Baptists can sometimes be the worst offenders of "sticking their nose in politics" they still are proponents of seperation.

I for one would not want a teacher who may or may not be a Christian, teaching children about Christian views or leading prayer. JMHO

[Dryad]

dukdodgers wrote:

<quoted text>
I am doing well, you? Busy today at work, just now got to log on.

I'm pretty good, thanks. Busy is good, it makes the time go faster.

[dukdodgers]

Dryad wrote:

<quoted text>
I would differ on your definition of Theistic Evolution. I think of my belief as Theistic Evolution. I allow for evolution AND still believe in the accounts of Genesis. I could explain to you how I reason this out but I'm afraid I would get picked on by both sides for my views. I assure you though, that they are quite well thought out.

Everything I have read on Theistic Evolutionists lead me to believe that they don't believe Genesis as it is written. I know quite a few churches allow for this because they don't interpret Genesis as a literal account. I still believe that ID and TE are two different beliefs.

I think most can handle a good debate Dryad, and I have never seen you try to push your belief on anyone, so, share away!

[dukdodgers]

Dryad wrote:

<quoted text>
I for one would not want a teacher who may or may not be a Christian, teaching children about Christian views or leading prayer. JMHO

Indeed, as I would not want Christian beliefs being taught to my children in class, unless it is a relevant topic.

[dukdodgers]

fishingoncredit wrote:

<quoted text>Your IPS location shows Rescue Ca. and I do agree that it is really in the need of being saved with comments like this coming out of it.
God bless your soul.

Like it or not, there are a whole lot of Christians that would like the USA to be a Christian version of the Middle East when it comes to having a Theocratic government.

Why do you think the Falwells, Robertsons, and the like give so much money to and lobby the government. They have an agenda, and it isn't co-existence.

[Dryad]

dukdodgers wrote:

<quoted text>
Everything I have read on Theistic Evolutionists lead me to believe that they don't believe Genesis as it is written. I know quite a few churches allow for this because they don't interpret Genesis as a literal account. I still believe that ID and TE are two different beliefs.
I think most can handle a good debate Dryad, and I have never seen you try to push your belief on anyone, so, share away!

Well it could get really long and I've got to get to bed soon but here's some.

Speciation

I think it's quite possible that there are millions of years between each day of creation. That would allow each day to be 24 hours and also allow for evolution (it doesn't actually say that they were consecutive days). There may have been a limited number of species created at each step which then became many. Or one (or a few) species created at the first step and then nudged in different directions during the millions of years between days.