Jump to content


Photo

What Side To Take, Evolution Or Creation?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
6 replies to this topic

#1 usafjay1976

usafjay1976

    Member

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 335 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Religion, Creation, Air Force, Traveling, Cooking, Movies
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New Jersey

Posted 03 December 2012 - 12:39 PM

As these debates go on, I notice some (myself included) generally use websites to support our views. If I'm posting something regarding fossils, I might use ICR. An evolutionist might use Talk Origins.

And so it goes. Back and forth:

Creationist: This couldn't have happened because '1, 2, and 3'.

Evolutionist: But it did because of '4, 5, and 6'.

Creationist: But you are forgetting that '7, 8, and 9' make '4, 5, and 6' moot!

Evolutionist: '10, 11, and 12' show that you are wrong.

So that being said, where is the end? How does it end? I've seen at least one user on here say evolution can't be proven. I as a creationist also realize creation can't be proven either. I just see the many problems with evolution (lack of transitional fossils, problems with radiocarbon dating, no 'proof', no experimental data, etc.). I see that there are too many 'ifs, could haves, might haves, and probablys' when discussing evolution.

I'd like to use the evolution of the first cell for example. I will put my comments in red after the quote.

Please note, I'm using an evolutionist site to show their thoughts. I will provide the link after some excerpts from it here. I will bold certain portions.

Instead life almost certainly originated in a series of small steps, each building upon the complexity that evolved previously

Where is the evidence this occurred? Has this been tested and proven?

Simple organic molecules, similar to the nucleotide shown below, are the building blocks of life and must have been involved in its origin. Experiments suggest that organic molecules [/b]could have been[/b] synthesized in the atmosphere of early Earth and rained down into the oceans.

What experiments prove this is what happened? Where is the scientific proof, be it observational and/or experimental, that these molecules were synthesized? How were they synthesized?

This ability probably first evolved in the form of an RNA self-replicator

Just another guess? How did this ability evolve?

Up until this point, life had probably relied on RNA for most jobs

Again, another guess?

Here is the link: http://evolution.ber...soforigin.shtml

So we have 'almost certainly', 'must have been', 'could have been', etc. This is science? What experiments have been done to prove these things occurred? I've been told you can't experiment in evolution. How about observation? Sure a cell can be observed, but what else has been observed to support this cellular evolution?

Posted Image


Of course, creationists will say God did it. In a nutshell, that's exactly right. Exactly how he did it? He commanded it. God can do that. Do we have evidence aside from the testimony of the Bible? Nope. We have the Bible and we consider that our ultimate authority. Creationist websites (at least most of them) tend to echo the Bible in teaching young earth, the problems with the fossil record, and the lack of evolutionary evidence. Creationists also challenge evolutionists to explain how the many amazing creatures in this world evolved. All creationists can do is point out the many holes in the theory of evolution and hope atheists see that. What kind of evidence would convince an evolutionist to believe in creation?

I realize though, even if God were to show Himself, there would still be unbelievers. The Bible says God has shown Himself through His creation. Hover over the Bible verses to read them if you wish.

Psalm 19: 1-4

Romans 1:20

A quick commentary on the above verse. Have you ever stopped to think about this? Verse 20 says that God's invisible attributes, and divine nature, have been clearly seen (v.20)." The Bible says that man, by simply contemplating creation itself, can come to an understanding of certain aspects of God's personality or attributes! In fact, His attributes are clearly seen.

I think atheists don't see God because they don't want to see God. Even though the marvels of this universe clearly cry out God, order, design, they still want to hold on to evolution, a theory full of maybes, a theory that always changes, a theory that has no witnesses, a theory that lacks substance.

Four ways God has revealed himself in the link below:

http://www.alwaysber...ntent&task=view


I've seen a recent post here where someone had said something along the lines of 'if evolution weren't true, then they couldn't wait for the next theory because it would be even more weird!' or something along those lines. I took that as, "even if evolution were 100% disproved, no longer considered a theory, an option, etc., that atheists will still be atheists and think of anything and everything else aside from the possibility of God".

I can't help but wonder, if the theory of evolution were totally discarded, what would the atheists do? Consider creation? Or is there a backup theory?

Hope everyone is having a good Monday. Posted Image

#2 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 03 December 2012 - 04:25 PM

There is no back-up for the atheists once evolution dies (and I am sure it will when the general public become more critical and aware of things), they'd have to go back to simple denial of a higher power based on their own faith that nothing like that can exist. What this means though is that you have a group of people who are personally and religiously locked with evolution in mind, since for many its the ultimate basis of their worldview which means they will protect it at all costs. This is why its considered "blasphemy" to be critical of evolution in science classes, (believe me I know!!), you cannot be critical of it because many who believe it do so with zeal.

#3 herebedragons

herebedragons

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 03 December 2012 - 05:34 PM

And so it goes. Back and forth: Creationist: This couldn't have happened because '1, 2, and 3'. Evolutionist: But it did because of '4, 5, and 6'. Creationist: But you are forgetting that '7, 8, and 9' make '4, 5, and 6' moot! Evolutionist: '10, 11, and 12' show that you are wrong. So that being said, where is the end? How does it end? I've seen at least one user on here say evolution can't be proven. I as a creationist also realize creation can't be proven either. I just see the many problems with evolution (lack of transitional fossils, problems with radiocarbon dating, no 'proof', no experimental data, etc.). I see that there are too many 'ifs, could haves, might haves, and probablys' when discussing evolution.


Have you ever considered the possibility that both may be right? I for one believe whole heartedly that God did create the universe and all that is in it. John 1:3. I believe the main theological doctrine being taught in Gen 1 is that everything that exists owes its existence to directly to God. Moreover, it was made not made from pre-existing materials, but from the command of God.

However, I cannot reconcile that the earth is young, or at least not 6,000 years young. (If the young earth estimates were in the millions I would be more likely to consider the possibility). The young earth explanation just does not fit into an old earth perspective. So I have to reconcile the two opposing views. I believe that evolution is the way God created the universe, sort of the paint brush if you will. It is the physical manifestation of God's creative efforts.

When I registered for this site, it forced me to declare an "affiliation" with one of the "sides" or "positions" of the debate. I felt none of them really fit me, but I chose old earth creationist because I believe God created and the earth is old. Theistic evolutionist doesn't fit me well because I feel it implies a "hands off" approach by God. He planted the first cell and let evolution take its course. I believe God was involved in the process.

It seems to me that an either / or approach is a false dichotomy.

As these debates go on, I notice some (myself included) generally use websites to support our views. If I'm posting something regarding fossils, I might use ICR. An evolutionist might use Talk Origins.


There may be another way to go about this. Look at both sides of the issue. I see you posting new thread after new thread without resolving the previous ones. The only way to truly analyze a problem is to look at both sides of the issue. How can you be sure that the "side" you are defending is right if you only look at their side of it? Don't approach this with the attitude of defending your position, but as a search for the truth.

HBD

#4 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 03 December 2012 - 06:18 PM

The only way to truly analyze a problem is to look at both sides of the issue. How can you be sure that the "side" you are defending is right if you only look at their side of it? Don't approach this with the attitude of defending your position, but as a search for the truth. HBD


I totally agree, critical thinking can only stem from observing both sides of view, actually this is the problem I see with the modern day education system since in terms of the evolution debate rather than teaching people how to think it more often than not tells people what to think.

#5 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2278 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 03 December 2012 - 06:24 PM

herebedragons:

However, I cannot reconcile that the earth is young, or at least not 6,000 years young.


Why not? The evidence is there...right on this very website: check out Fred Williams thread "Helium Zircons is powerful evidence for a young world"

#6 herebedragons

herebedragons

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 03 December 2012 - 07:59 PM

I totally agree, critical thinking can only stem from observing both sides of view, actually this is the problem I see with the modern day education system since in terms of the evolution debate rather than teaching people how to think it more often than not tells people what to think.


Great! I am glad we finally agree on something Posted Image. This is truly the reason I came to this site, to have honest, thoughtful dialog regarding this debate.

HBD

#7 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 03 December 2012 - 08:02 PM

Great! I am glad we finally agree on something Posted Image. This is truly the reason I came to this site, to have honest, thoughtful dialog regarding this debate. HBD


I am sure we would have much to agree about, outside of the evolution debate




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users