Creation vs Evolution is pointless.

Creation is based on faith.
Evolution is based on logic.

Faith and logic do not play well together. Any person who is faithful and logical will tell you that once you make that leep of faith, you accept that you are leaving logic behind.

A person of faith will never accept evidence and logical things over that FAITH.
A person of logic will never accept a blind faith based on its teaching over thier LOGIC.

In the end 3 characteristic determine which origin of species people believe in.

1) Are you based on faith or logic?
2) Are you able to grasp the explination of creationism or able to comprehend the details of evolution.
3) How does your belief effect the rest of you.

The whole "argument" is just recruiting of people on both sides. Some people want a logical world of people who can not have faith and some people want a faithful world that ignores logic.

Remember this next time you go to battle for either side of the argument/recruitment... No matter what YOU believe of there is only ONE reality and what other people believes does not change that. So why are you fighting them?

Originally posted by Quest
Creation is based on faith.
Evolution is based on logic.

Faith and logic do not play well together. Any person who is faithful and logical will tell you that once you make that leep of faith, you accept that you are leaving logic behind.

A person of faith will never accept evidence and logical things over that FAITH.
A person of logic will never accept a blind faith based on its teaching over thier LOGIC.

Then why do so many faithful and pious christians accept evolution? And why do so many 'stout' creationists accept the 'theory' of gravity, or the atomic theory?

I think that its not so much faith versus logic, as much as its fear of what evolution means. People are fearful that evolution means man is just an animal and that there is no god. And yet, newtonian physics is a far greater challenge to the existence of god than evolution, which only deals with a small subset of stuff.

3) How does your belief effect the rest of you.

I think that this is paramount really. Most people don't have a problem with evolution, but many are rather disgusted and humbled by having come from apes.

Some people want a logical world of people who can not have faith and some people want a faithful world that ignores logic.

I can only think of a few people that honestly say all faith should be destroyed, and most of those are politicians and the like, not evoltuionists.

So why are you fighting them?

Why are you trying to convince people not to?

This is a discussion group, there's lots to discuss. Creationism and Evolution are great things to discuss, you can have really interesting conversations with people about it. Also, there is a politcal movement associated with creationism that seeks to undermine the state and replace science with dogmatic scripturalism, so why shouldn't people oppose it?

Not only can you enjoy great conversations, but you can learn a lot too. You not only learn more about your own 'side', but assuming you are not a closed-minded person, you will learn something from the other side as well. You just have to realize that you are debating more for knowledge and the fun of debating itself than converting the other person to your point of view. I understand that this last thing is usually what a debate is all about, but for such a sensitive topic like this, it's nearly impossible to convert a person to your side. It's frustrating as all hell and cause me to go off on a rant a couple days ago!

Both of you have great points.

I think what I really should have said is that it need to be more debate and less yelling and spewwing of generalized pointless arguments.

Debate is always good, the way it is carried out is important though.

Sure, I definately see where you're coming from Quest. Pointless yelling solves nothing. The most annoying thing I think is when people compromise the entire format of the debate. By this, I mean when people are backed into a corner, and instead of admitting that they can go no further in the debate they resort to opinion, which brings everything to a screeching halt. I think that this forum has some promise though. People that go here obviously expect to debate...they aren't accidently forced into one from a tangent on some irrelevant thread.

actually if you really believe in the bible, it makes sense to have faith and be logical. christianity is the only religion where you can have faith and be logical . see, you need a logical answer as to how the universe was created. so you have faith that the logical answer is in creation.

Evolution is not logical at all. nothin exploding and creating everything is not logical. so the statement that evolution is based on logic is a false statement.

anything to do with undocumented past(or documented for that matter...people do lie ya know) or religion is all pointless.

No way ever to possibly prove anything to do with it

actually if you really believe in the bible, it makes sense to have faith and be logical. christianity is the only religion where you can have faith and be logical . see, you need a logical answer as to how the universe was created. so you have faith that the logical answer is in creation.

Christianity isn't any different than any other religion. Now lets play with a little logic. By you're logic In order for something/event (the universe) to exist something prior to it had to exist to create it. Here you insert "god". Now this is where you no longer are following logic. According to you god is a supreme being outside of our realm that has always existed and always will.

Now, if god never had to be created and will never be destroyed, Then you cannot logically conclude that the universe had to be created by anything.


People have a concept of time, a cause and effect if you will. Every action creates a reaction, However every action is also a reaction to a previous action. The problem is logically there cannot be a first action. So we break logic, and insert the answer/diety we choose.

Sacreligion
anything to do with undocumented past(or documented for that matter...people do lie ya know) or religion is all pointless.

No way ever to possibly prove anything to do with it

Depends on your definition of documented. If you mean witnessed and written down by people, well we can only go back a few years geologically speaking. But through science we are able to tell a lot. You can look at a rock layer in a cliff of sandstone, and tell the direction the rivers ran. You can tell if a region was very dry, swampy, and so forth by looking to see if the rock still contains K-feldspar, black shale. etc. You can tell if area had glacial activity and at which points the glaceir started to recede (Moraines) or if it receded and then pushed pushed past it's previous point (Drumlins).

Historical geology, gotta love it

I tend to agree the argument is of little point myself. "life" needs no explainations, its beauty and complexity speaks volumes for its self.
Enjoy it, marvel at it, partake in it, but dont argue about it, its short!

evolution and creation are both tied to religion. evolution is just as scientific as creation. both are theories.

Originally posted by Joshm2u
evolution is just as scientific as creation. both are theories.

Both these statements are absolutely and completely wrong. Evolutionary biology is thoroughly scientific. Its based on observations of the natural world and the testing of scientific hypotheses that spring from those observations. It, like the rest of science is also 'potentially refuteable'. There are results that could be gotten from experiment and observations that could be made in nature, that could demonstrate that Darwin's theory is essentially incorrect. Creationism is anti-thetical to science. Its the opposite of science. There is no scientific theory of creationism. Its not a theory, its a religious idea inspired by a literal reading of the bible. Why do you keep making statements like the above but then never try to support them or elaborate on them?

Originally posted by instar
I tend to agree the argument is of little point myself. "life" needs no explainations, its beauty and complexity speaks volumes for its self.
Enjoy it, marvel at it, partake in it, but dont argue about it, its short!

Damn you're a genius!!

Other than myself and a handful of others it's too bad nobody else is going to listen to you. In fact, what you've just said, although being direct and simple and truthful, will be seen by most as totally worthless simply because it doesn't prove/disprove all the various questions they have about god(s) good/evil, who's right and who's wrong, etc. etc. They will most likely realize the importance behind that last sentence you wrote when it is too late to make much of a difference.

I came up with something that combines the theory of evolution and the belief of religion. But first you have to understand something from the artist's point of view. You imagine something in your head and you try to put it on paper but you can't seem to get it right. You keep trying over and over again but you just cant get it. This is what God has(or had). He had an image in his head. An image of a peaceful place. But when he created it it didn't turn out anything like he had planned. He kept changing things. One at a time. This caused what we know today as evolution. We are no where near perfect but it was the closest God got to what he wanted. He does not want to chance destroying it but he will eventually. Or will we destroy ourselves first? December 21, 2012 may be a day of death and destruction, or it could be a day of freedom and salvation. No one will know until that day comes.

Reply to post by Quest

I agree with your conclusion if not your HORRIBLY abusive of absolutist opinion argument.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

No offense to you(just all of it), but you're a fool to believe that there is logic behind evolution. There is virtually no scientific evidence that gives evolution any sort of support, where there is lot's more evidence supporting biblical claims. Tell me what you really know about evolution? Is it logical to believe that(according to evolution) living orginisms came from a soup of chemicals? Is it logical to believe that something that is so completly, so unimaginabley, so uncomprehensibley, so irreducebley complex such as the human body and its functions as well as all living creatures and their universe of complexity all happened merely by chance? According to the laws of chance the time it took for the earth to supposidly form is comepletly wrong. The chances of a human being made in the randomness of space and time are 537638403702023 to the power of 10 to the 45000000000 to 1. Now there is something in the laws of chance that is how much time it takes for randomness to have any specific outcome; 4500000000 compare to the odds might as well be here and now.

Overveiwing the posts so far, most of the creationist responses are from Christians. One even claims that only Christian creationism is "logical"! There has also been much discussion between scientists and ISKCON (Hindu) creationists, whose very "old world", cyclical view of creation(s) is just as logical or challenging. In any case, most posters appear to be from Christian dominated cultures. Therefore, the more I read on Christian creationism it strikes me that there is no singlular view on this. Opinions on the web differ widely on the Christian creation.
The split already occurs in the narratives of Genesis, which has two accounts of creation. Genesis 1 has the earth and its creatures, lastly including people, created in six days. Genesis 2 has Adam created first, then the animals and then only Eve. Although scholars suggest that the contradiction stems from two different Babylonian creation myths, the faithful have as many explanations as there are churches and sects. Some suggest that Genesis 1 is the big picture and 2 the detail (which doesn't expalin the differing order of events). Others claim the creation happened twice, once on earth giving rise to the animals and the pre-Adamic races, and once in the Garden of Eden (the location of which is also disputed as either physical or spriritual), although this implies that the creation happened twice and its adherents are Dual-Creatioinsts. "Creationism" is thus somewhat of a misnomer for them.
Then comes the question of literalism vs. metaphorism. The "young earth creationists" argue that the earth with everything on it was created 6000 years ago. Others contest this. Some say it was literally created in six days (at least the Genesis 1 version), while others say the "days" refer to "ages" and possibly thousands or even millions of years. The metaphorical reading of Genesis 1 would therefore be the most congruent with evolutionary science.
It's even been argued that the creator in Genesis 1 is called "Elohim", a plural for goddesses, rather than one, male God. Others say this is just a grammatical convention.

So before Christians say their's is the only logical scheme of creation, could they please explain what the standard Christian view of creation actually is? Seemingly there are many Christian "creationisms".


[edit on 14-5-2010 by halfoldman]

Originally posted by instar
I tend to agree the argument is of little point myself. "life" needs no explainations, its beauty and complexity speaks volumes for its self.
Enjoy it, marvel at it, partake in it, but dont argue about it, its short!

Amazingly Beautiful!

@OP:

Theory of Evolution vs Creationism may seem pointless until on realizes both can happen by the natural evolution and belief in the infinite (i.e. quantum mechanics).

The actual debate is "Creation vs Science" because "creationism" attacks many fields of science, not just evolutionary theory.

Evolution occurs, we know that it does. To debate it and say that it doesn't means that you lack proper education on the matter.

[edit on 14-5-2010 by PieKeeper]

i like your reply fllaammee .
only one problem with that idea if god is perfict wouldnt that mean he could only get his art right ? I mean we immange a thing and try to creat it but being imperfict we can only get close and so aloways have to change it but god being perfict can immange a thing in all its prefection and its done .
If god cannot get it right the first time taht means wile his immangation may be perfect his applacation of it ISENT

reply to post by Quest


I just don't understand that why it has to be one or the other. To me it's the denial of the soul that has lead to so many problems. I accept logic when I see it applying, but I know that logic doesn't define everything and there is way too many mysteries in life to label everything under one way...