Why I believe in Creation
March 5, 2011 at 8:49 pm #14593
Hey I am a teenager that randomly came across this site while I was researching, and I felt led by the Lord to say something. First of all, I believe that to have an argument that will actually benefit the two parties involved you cannot just throw dirt on the other person’s belief system, I am not going to do that, and I really don’t like hearing of people who do(including and espescially Christians who believe in a Creationist viewpoint, the Bible says we are to be a light to the world, not judges!) Second, there really is no solid proof for either of the two viewpoints, or the Evolutionary theory, would not be a theory, but if you would like to know why I believe in Creation, it is because I believe that it fits better, Charles Darwin once said that evolution takes more faith to believe in than Creation. If you go back to the origins of both viewpoints, that is to say that if you asked a Creationist where God came from, or if you asked an Evolutionist where matter came from, you end up with either an eternal Intelligent Designer(God) or eternal matter. It takes much less faith to believe in an eternal Intelligent Designer than eternal matter. Many people believe that because Evolution is taught in schools and pushed by the media, that science proves the Evolutionary theory, but that is not so, there are so many gaps in both viewpoints that people on both sides use against each other for example: if a Creationist asked an Evolutionist why there are no transitional forms, of course the Evolutionist will answer that we just haven’t discovered any yet, just as the Creationist would defend his viewpoint with an answer that cannot be proved. The thing is there are so many things in this earth that suggest an intelligent designer, rather than random chance. I know that there are lots more things that could be said on both viewpoints, but I am only a teenager and I am trying not to turn this into a lengthy dissertation, so I will leave it at that. I would like to hear anything you have to say, and if you find anything that I said that is wrong, just send me a message and I’ll correct my mistakes
Thanks, God Bless You
March 6, 2011 at 9:12 am #103752JackBeanParticipant
Hi and welcome.
well, your first mistake is, that creation and evolution are not competitors.
First, the life had to come up, either by creation, abiogenesis or whatever.
Then, there is question, whether life evolved since creation/appearance or is the same forever.
Well, we can see around us quite lots of examples of evolution even nowadays, one just needs to read more about the nature…
Regarding the creation, maybe for you it’s easier to believe in some God, for me it’s easier to believe there is any. It would be even easier believe, that alies brougth life to Earth 🙂
But if there was any "Inteligent" Designer, he wouldn’t be that inteligent, because one can see, how many mistakes in previous development has been blindly corrected by subsequent evolution.
March 7, 2011 at 8:39 pm #103798
You need to do some more reading – your premises are flawed, basically the same lies that have been presented to Christians for decades. You’re trusting very untrustworthy sources – and by that I don’t mean the book, but people who are so threatened by actual evidence that they actively lie about it. Even the Darwin quote is hopelessly out of context.
For instance, no transitional forms? Have you checked?
March 8, 2011 at 2:14 pm #103817
as to the first comment by Jack Bean I should have specified that I meant "divine creation", and that there is no doubt that these two are in conflict with one another, because God couldn’t possibly have used evolution for several reasons: here is one, on the third day God created plants, which if God had used millions of years for one "day" of creation, the plants wouldn’t have survived till the fourth day on which he created the sun. As to why I believe in creation, its not just "easier" to believe in divine creation, but it shows itself throughout his creation, man just cannot stand the thought that there is a God who is many times wiser than they are. Oh, and what are the "mistakes" that you are talking about?
As to the second comment by Darby, I know that the Darwin quote is out of context but I couldn’t remember the exact words, and as to transitional forms, would you mind giving some examples?
March 9, 2011 at 2:38 pm #103836
I guess it all comes back to our presuppositions of Creation and evolution, for a Creationist they are: that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, that the Bible is God’s word, that God created the world in six days about 6000 years ago, and that about 4500 years ago a worldwide flood destroyed all animals and humans except for those aboard the Ark which God commanded Noah to build.
For an evolutionist they would be: There is no God, that everything came from nothing or from random chance, that people and animals evolved from common ancestors over billions of years, and that homology proves the evolution of all humans and animals.
There is no way to prove any of those, and I believe that there never will be, and that it all comes back to how much faith you have.
March 9, 2011 at 9:03 pm #103839quote Jonl1408:
The problem is that the evolutionist/scientific approach use facts and hypothesis based on observed phenomena to make hypothesis about what happened in the past. And the check that the hypothesis are coherent with other observed facts. That is science work.
The evolutionist pulls facts out of his a$$ or from a book written in the past by people who had no clue nor explanation about the world other than very basic observation and what they could make up to protect their power over their tribe.
So, neither can prove anything, but if I have to make a choice, I’d rather trust scientist that are working hard to develop a coherent explanation of our world and change it when the facts are opposed to their hypothesis rather than any goat/camel/sheep/herder from 2000 years ago who wanted to have the member of the tribe bring him food to intercede with higher powers rather than actually work by himself. Besides why would the biblical myth f the creation would be more true than any other myth of creation? There are many more documented, some way older than the christian one, any many way more entertaining.
And you are also right about faith, it all depends in the amount of faith, obscurantism and gobbled-up made-up explanation you are ready to let muddy your vision of the world. If you rather stay blind and keep your brain passively accepting explanation provided by people who are more interested in your devotion (to their interest) than to critical thinking, you are welcome to do so. But I suggest that you do not try to use logic to convince anyone of your assertions, you cannot win.
March 9, 2011 at 9:11 pm #103840
Oh and by the way:
I do not exist. Neither does the rest of the world. It is all a figment of your imagination. There is nothing but what you imagine. And I am the terribly nagging part of your brain that would like you to start engaging your critical abilities, rather than passively accepting the ”divine word”.
You are welcome to try to prove that the real world do really exist 😛
Mind you, you could commit any form of suicide, if I am nothing but a figment of your imagination, you should end up fine. Mind you, if I am real that may be a bit more catastrophic… At least you would have proved me wrong, at the risk of your only life. And even if you believe in an afterlife, I seem to remember that the christian doctrine does seriously disapprove of taking short cuts to the heaven and will send you forever in hell for trying to escape this valley of tears before you have lived the prescribed amount of time (I let you think about free will etc.). So in any case I do not suggest you listen to me and try anything more stupid, that will achieve nothing.
March 11, 2011 at 5:45 pm #103862
Thank you for pointing out that science is very important to our beliefs, I have some links here that will explain my views in a scientific fashion, I will refer you to these links since I have many things to write about, and not much time
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio … lution.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-ans … opes-trial
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-ans … n-features
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-ans … ial-organs
Many Creation and Evolution scientists have worked very hard to get these answers and I think that they will help you to understand that scientific evidence shows both sides.
Addressing your comment about the Creationist viewpoint obscuring my view of the world, rather than obscuring it, it clarifies my view of the world. I find that it allows me to understand both sides Creation and Evolution more clearly.
Addressing your Ashley Montague quote, if someone is not certain about their proof then it is not proof, both Creationists and Evolutionists have certainty but have no solid proof, or Evolution and Creation would not be hypotheses.
Proof: the establishment of a fact by the use of evidence
To answer your second comment, if you are saying that besides our senses, all that we have to prove that everything is real, is our faith, then I definitely agree with you.
March 11, 2011 at 6:05 pm #103866
Here is the main link, if you have any questions for me, when I am not on, this site should have most of them on it and is a very good place for material.
Here are some more links for you to check out if you have the time, and I think that they are very interesting.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-ans … mics-order
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-ans … /mutations
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-ans … -selection
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-ans … e-evidence
March 11, 2011 at 6:26 pm #103867JackBeanParticipantquote :
😆 😆 😆 So, if he assumes evolution, than he misinterpret the evidence, while when he assumes the God, he will properly interpet the data 😆 🙄 😆
March 11, 2011 at 9:47 pm #103868
Creation scientist are even less scientist than those you see on TV ads for cosmetics.
Answer in genesis is not a source of scientific knowledge, but just the preaching of people who do not hesitate to ignore fact to keep their fictions alive.
I guess JackBean’s excerpt is the demonstration of what is horribly wrong in this website. If when you have to chose between facts and faith, you chose faith, then you cannot be a scientist, what you are is deluded.
March 14, 2011 at 3:10 am #103895Sarah777Participant
Jon1408 you made one major mistake in your above posts…you made the statement that creation along with evolution has no solid evidence and cannot be proved. However creation has every bit of proof necessary and much much more! In order to believe that creation is true you first have to believe that the Bible is true. So I will do my best to explain some very basic ways we can know the Bible is truth.
Unlike any other religions the bible was not written by a man trying to come up with hypothetical historical facts. We know this because the writers of the Bible used very specific names, places, and dates that took place thousands of years ago. Now if someone had merely invented this religion and had come up with the Bible he would never have included such details for fear of being disproved! Not only that but the facts listed in the Bible have been proved by archeology! The stories in the Bible are not myths they are true and so much has already been found to prove that but there is much much more to be found still. God knew men would doubt and as a result He gave us answers…you just have to look for them!
Evolution seeks to prove itself on the premise that all things came form nothing, but where have we ever seen such an occurrence before? Everything must come from something, but not only must it come from something but it must come from something more complex not less…for instance where in this physical world have we ever seen a case of something bad becoming something better overtime? And by this I don’t mean something like a tadpole becoming a frog…that is evidence for creation not evolution…it is part of the natural cycle of life for frogs. You will never see a tadpole become a frog and then a fish and then grow wings and fly. Could you give me a tangible example of evolution working today?
Why is it that Darwin assumed we came from monkeylike ancestors but there are no creatures in the transitional stages today? Of the history we all agree we have documentation for, have we ever seen any instances of evolution taking place? Darwin never saw any when he came up with the evolution hypothesis, so what was it that he based evolution on? We will do our best to answer your questions but we still have many of our own about evolution.
Evolution relies on a very large amount of faith, much more than it takes to believe in creation…
March 14, 2011 at 5:58 pm #103903
That’s a new one – nothing in transitional stages today.
EVERYTHING is in transitional stages, we just don’t know how dramatic the eventual "transited" form will be. And some of the stages have been seen changing. Evolutionary theory would predict that the likeliest forms to see evolving over the short term (and we’ve only been looking for decades) are those that both reproduce quickly (since evolution changes populations, how quickly a population "turns over" is critical) and are presented with major environmental changes. Transitions have happened in bacteria, fish, even Darwin’s finches. Transitions have been detected even in human populations in different locales, but these haven’t happened that recently.
Also, if a book has one accurate statement, that’s little support that it’s all absolutely true. Even the people who wrote the book rarely claim it as absolutely truthful – as Lewis Black says, "this is our book, and we know it was bullsh-t."
March 15, 2011 at 1:08 am #103909Sarah777Participant
Could you please give me some specific examples of those transitional stages? You said transitions have happened in bacteria, fish, and Darwin’s finches? Could you please explain what these transitions were? Also the transitions that happened in human populations, could you identify what those were as well?
If the Bible were to have even one inaccurate statement it would negate the credibility of the entire book, which is why I believe so strongly that it is 100% accurate. Do you have any specific contradictions of any part of the Bible? I would like to do my level best to find the answers! Unlike any other author Jesus does claim that His Word the Bible is 100% accurate!
March 15, 2011 at 3:15 pm #103916quote Sarah777:
May i point you to this? There are a lot of contradictions in the Bible. And Jesus did not write the Bible either (there is a hint of that in the title of the different books).
So there goes the credibility of the book.
And I must say that I love the way you prove that the Bible must be true, you start by your belief (the bible must be true), see the consequence of it being wrong (If not, it is nothing more than a poorly assembled recording of the history by many authors compiled and with limited historical significance), and because you cannot face that consequence decide that your faith must be true. Not a very logical way of thinking, is it?
March 15, 2011 at 8:51 pm #103922
For inaccurate, the Bible says that pi is 3…
March 16, 2011 at 3:12 am #103923
@ Sarah777 I totally agree with you on this one, and you were right about the mistake I made, I am going to correct it in a second.
@ Canalon, Jesus inspired the writers of the Bible, and although they were men and were fallible His words to them were not. Therefore even though the Bible was not penned directly from the hand of God it is His infallible Word. As to why the Creationist viewpoint has to be based on the Bible, if it wasn’t, then it would just be some myth for people to study and talk about, but the Bible is the written Word Of God, and if we are basing our viewpoint on an intelligent creator, then having His inspired word is a necessary part of our viewpoint.
God good to all, or just a few? :PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.
The Bible states that the Lord is good, but is also a righteous Judge, in Jeremiah he is speaking of those children of Israel, who turned from him and to the pagan gods of the countries around them, and since God is a Just God, he punished them. This was after Jeremiah had repeatedly given warnings to the children of Israel, from God. People today repeat the past and turn to other things, just as the children of Israel did, so for all our "advanced" society, people are pretty much the same. God tells us that "the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 6:23) Just as any parent would correct his child when he/she is disobedient the same goes for our loving heavenly father. Parents correct their children out of love, and this same principle applies to God.
War or Peace? : Exodus 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name. Romans 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.
To explain this one, you must ask why Moses and the children of Israel are singing this, in Exodus 15. Pharaoh’s army was just destroyed when the Red Sea crashed down upon them, after being held up, by God, for the millions of children of Israel for possibly a whole day. When Paul was speaking in Romans 15:33, he was speaking to the Church, and by saying "the God of peace" he was meaning that God is the one who gives peace. Why is it not possible for God to be both a God who loves Peace and fights against evil? People generally don’t like war, they are generally peace-loving, but when the time comes, they rise to the occasion and fight.
Who is the father of Joseph? : To answer this it is important that you understand that Jacob was Joseph’s father, and that in the Jewish Talmud it states that Heli is Mary’s father, which makes him Joseph’s father-in-law. Heli had two daughters and no sons, which made his daughter’s husband his son in Jewish law. Also as a side note Luke always traced Christ’s lineage through Mary, while Matthew traced it through Joseph.
Who was at the empty tomb? : Four different disciples inspired by God wrote the same thing, in their own words. Mary Magdalene came with Mary mother of James, on the first day of the week, at dawn to see the tomb. John only mentions Mary Magdalene, because she was the key person (perhaps because of her prominence, either during or after Jesus’ earthly ministry).
Matthew, along with John, is the only one to mention an appearance of Jesus to the women. John indicates that that this appearance occured on their second visit to the tomb. So Matthew only mentions the two women who also made this second visit, and hence saw Jesus that morning.
Mark and Luke, who mention only the first visit by the women, give a larger group of women, since there were more women present on the first trip.
MATTHEW 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher.
MARK 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
JOHN 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
LUKE 24:10 It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna* and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.
*= Joanna the wife of Chuza Luke 8:3 "And Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others which ministered unto him of their substance."
Is Jesus equal to or lesser than God his Father?: To understand this it is necessary that you understand the trinity, that is to say that God is three in one. The relationship between Jesus and God is that of a son to his Father. As God he was equal to the father but as man he was positionally inferior to God the Father.
JOHN 10:30 I and my Father are one.
JOHN 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
Which first–beasts or man? : GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
"Both issues can be resolved by an understanding of the original language and the translation process. The Hebrew word for “formed” in both passages is yatsar. The New King James Version translates the verb in its perfect form. However, this Hebrew word may also be translated in its pluperfect form. In this case, it would read that God “had formed” these creatures, as some other translations have it. For example, Genesis 2:19 in the NIV states: “Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them.” (emphasis mine)
This rendering eliminates any problem with the chronology because it refers to what God had already done earlier in the creation week." ~ Answers in Genesis.
How many beasts in the ark? : “Seven” is likely “seven pairs” (the Hebrew allows for that), but even allowing that it means only “seven,” it seems quite obvious that when describing the animals loading the Ark, the vast majority were pairs. God could have inspired Moses to say, “The animals loaded the Ark in pairs—with that seventh odd animal coming in behind as a slow tag-a-long.” But not stating it that way doesn’t make it false; it’s just a simplification.
How many stalls and horsemen did solomon have? : This one is actually a translation/copyist error
Is it Folly to be wise or not? : To understand this it is best that you understand what these chapters are saying, in Proverbs 4:7 it is a father speaking to his children of the follies of this world, and how they need to be wise and stay away from evil things, In Ecclesiastes he was speaking more of how giving your life to the pursuit of knowledge and learning, rather than learning how to apply it is dangerous for anyone, but especially as followers of the Lord, we must learn how to apply knowledge, rather than just pursue it, In 1 Corinthians 1:19 Paul is saying that the Lord strikes down those people who gain knowledge and wisdom just to show it off with pride.
Proverbs 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
Ecclesiastes 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
1 Corinthians 1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."
Human vs. ghostly impregnation : The virgin birth was a miracle, and can not be explained in scientific terms. If God was able to create the entire universe and its laws than He would certainly be able to change them for his purposes.
Acts 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
These are answers to the first 10 contradictions on the list, I will try to systematically answer all of them. But I don’t have time to get to them all tonight! 🙂
March 16, 2011 at 4:20 pm #103932
No, please don’t. You have your rationalization, I do not care. The previous poster said that the Bible is perfect and that if it wasn’t so her faith would not be held.Well I took the first link on Google listing imperfections, contradictions and other in the Bible. And you come along changing the Goalpost. The Bible is now the perfect word of god, minus a few translation and transcription errors (mutations? :D), and a few approximations here, and some simplifications there. Some kind of perfection.
And we will completely forget the historical facts about how the Bible was assembled from a collection a texts carefully selected over time. I guess you will say that the chosing was completely inspire by god. Who although he is supposed to be omnipotent took a few centuries and many popes to make his choice known. 🙄
And Jesus inspired the Bible? Including the Old testament, I guess, which was written long before he was born and for which there are physical evidence of existence prior to his supposed time on our earth? That is quite the feat again. But I guess for a guy that can change water into wine, walk on water and multiply bread and fishes, we can expect a bit of time travel. Unless Michael Moorcock was right 8)
In conclusion in your case Jonl1408 and sarah777 you first have faith, then you will twist facts to match it, change the goal posts and definitions when you are proved wrong (see your definition of perfection) If that is what you want, well that is your problem, but please do not pollute the internet with your stupidity, it does more to hurt christianity (which has a few good bits lost in the mass of nonsense) than science.
March 17, 2011 at 1:37 am #103936
As to how the books of the Bible were chosen, they chose which books should be in the old testament, by the books that the Jews have had throughout history, the books of the law that Jews had had given to them before the time of Jesus, and the ones that Jesus himself quoted from. The new testament was chosen by which books were written by the disciples, because there are many writings which may not be legitimate.
Also I did not say that Jesus inspired the writers of the Bible, I said God, but that wouldn’t matter anyway, because as Jesus said " I and my Father are one" -John 10:30
Besides God didn’t need to send Jesus back in time, to tell the writers of the old testament what to say. He simply inspired them to write what they did, not actually spoke to them, except for in some cases. Inspire does not always mean talking to someone.
(Inspire: to stimulate to action or motivate)
If God created the universe along with the earth and everything in it, then why wouldn’t he have been able to give the writers of the Bible ideas on what to write, it seems pretty simple to me.
To your third comment, we have faith because of our facts, not the other way around.
How did we change the definitions of the words that that website, took out of context?
The next thing I would like to say is that we are not trying to hurt science, we are merely trying to show it in its truer form.
I have been trying to keep this conversation as polite as possible, and I do not understand why I have been met with bad words and sarcasm, instead of just scientific facts. I also thought that this conversation was about facts, am I right? Because it keeps coming back to attack God or the Bible, does that mean that you think that they themselves are facts?
March 18, 2011 at 6:28 pm #103983
I find it strange that no one decided to answer that. I usually try to answer questions as quickly as possible.
April 4, 2011 at 8:22 pm #104305Zenithar66Participantquote Jonl1408:
I feel that this argument shows the state of the general population as pertaining to religion or and science.
That anyone can take the bible literally and therefore on faith shows only one thing, a lack of research and an unwillingness to open the mind. If you truly delved into the history of religions and even science you would know that christianity is nothing more or less then a form of "paganism" and astrology distilled to produce a form of control and a particular would view. Now dont get me wrong, I do not feel that religion is inherantly bad or faith for that matter but I cannot but feel sad when i see religious fundamentalists in this world, and those would take scriptture literally.
There is beauty and philosiphy in religion, even science, and alot more then most people think. But to cherry pick what you like and take it as true, and form there base your world view is simply ignorance and lack of will to delve deeper into history itself.
The world of religion is a rich and fascinating one, but its an insult to human intelligence to take one book of the many religious scriptures as the only truth.
I mean, I am not yet convinced of evolutions mechanisms as relates to what we see in nature by any means, infact i suspect as of now a design.(opinion subject to change) but I dont find what i like or makes me feel comfortable(the bible) and stop reseraching further to see if the opinions and subjects are accurate. Humans always try to control humnas, usually the few over the many, and religion was not birthed from this as many assume, but used for it.
I think you need to re educated yourself, expand your horizons and see the allegory, philosophy and science within religion ratehr then taking the book as literal truth, becuase a small sojourn into the texts of our ancient ancestors demonstrates unequivocally that the bible is certainly not an original text, and therefore not the literall truth..
April 19, 2011 at 7:49 pm #104527robsabbaParticipantquote Jonl1408:
1. As scientists, we make no assumptions about God. Most Christians accept evolution, in any case.
2. The only ones who believe everything came from nothing are creationists ("creatio ex nihilo").
3. We make no "presuppositions" about the origin of species. Common descent is inferred from the evidence, not assummed.quote Jonl1408:
Common descent is inferred from all the physical evidence. While we do not prove anything in science in absolute terms, we can say that evolution is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
April 19, 2011 at 7:58 pm #104528robsabbaParticipantquote Sarah777:
There are lots of examples of transitionals in the fossil record. here are a few:
1. Horses: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html
2. Whales: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric … Whales.htm
3: Mammal-like reptiles: http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Unit … 0.000.html
4. Fishapods: http://www.devoniantimes.org/quote Sarah777:
So, because even one inaccurate statement would destroy the credablility of your holy book, you believe strongly that there aren’t any. That is called "circular reasoning."
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.