![Dark[NSF]](/data/avatars/s/35/35331.jpg?1424422846){kind=avatar}
I know this could possibly turn into a flame war, but I'm just curious who is for what.
Evolution for me.
Evolution for me.
Evolution or Creation?
- Thread starter Dark[NSF]
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
Creation.
Let the Christian bashing begin. (although Christianity is not a requirement for Creationism)
Let the Christian bashing begin. (although Christianity is not a requirement for Creationism)
id go with tool, unless your a fundamentalist, evolution IS part of creation.... the idea that God brought about evolution (single celled organisims dont usually appear out of nowhere)
but if we're talking the literal sense, im evolution, in literal terms creation is jibberish, to believe it, is to not accept science (which is a valid view, everyone has their own opinion
)
but if we're talking the literal sense, im evolution, in literal terms creation is jibberish, to believe it, is to not accept science (which is a valid view, everyone has their own opinion
)
I believe in evolution absolutely, and with the facts that there are, I think believeing anything else is misguided. however that doesn't rule out creationism somewhere along the line, or even all throughout.
/edit to clarify, I don't believe in a litteral seven days thing. But then I don't take much in the Bible as being a literal thing.
/edit to clarify, I don't believe in a litteral seven days thing. But then I don't take much in the Bible as being a literal thing.
Last edited:
Rocket_Magnet said:creation is jibberish, to believe it, is to not accept science (which is a valid view, everyone has their own opinion
Just to let you know, science cannot and has not proven (nor disproven) either creation or evolution. Neither can be confirmed through scientific reasoning (observable, testable, repeatable), and both require just as much blind faith as the other.
Both: I believe that a higher power, such as luck or a freak accident, created life initially, but then after that, evolution created the world as we know it today. As i can only vote for one of the choices above, i think evolution outweighs creation.
Cat Fuzz
Qualthwar's Minion. Ph34r!
Creation all the way. By that I mean the literal, Biblical account of Creation. God is perfect, man is not, therefore, it must be man's data that is flawed.
/me waits for the "But the Bible was written by man" arguement......Classic.
BTW, Pheonix, it's six days not seven.
/me waits for the "But the Bible was written by man" arguement......Classic.
BTW, Pheonix, it's six days not seven.
common sense
ah, darn it! I wish there would be atleast one poll with the option "common sense" and I don't care if it fits the topic or not
ah, darn it! I wish there would be atleast one poll with the option "common sense" and I don't care if it fits the topic or not
(scroll to the bottom to get the gist if you don't enjoy diatribes )
Renegade, you might want to check your facts. Evolution can and has been proven. What has not been proven is that all the diversity of life today has evolved from simple organisms, which themselves, according to this theory, arose out of inert material. It's beyond the scope of science as we know it now to prove things that occurred in such scales of time and space, much like it hasn't been proven that thermonuclear fusion is even the process that keeps stars "alive". There comes a point where there is enough evidence of an effect to justify confidence in the theory, in the case of the internal workings of the star, from spectroscopy and the observation of stars in different stages of their lives.
For some people, no amount of evidence would ever be enough to convince them that some theories are valid, much like no amount could ever disprove some of their ideas.
The difference between creationism and evolution is that one bases its ideas in measurable things, the other in the immeasurable. Perhaps the dawn of life is something that cannot be measured, or is not available to be such by our current approach, and perhaps this is the futility of the theory of evolution. Creationism, however, does not base its ideas on tangibility, inference, or the development of our understanding: it is what it is, though many people have different ideas about what it is exactly (the great difference between the two accounts of creation in the Bible was enough to explain to me the vast variety of different beliefs among Christians). Some people are convinced their interpretation is the correct one, others are waiting for one better than their own to come along, and some simply haven't figured it out yet. This is mental science, not physical science. The two are not parallel.
The bottom line to me: evolution would joyfully prove itself wrong if evidence to do so arose, and a new theory would go into the works -- such is a theory. Creationism is what it is and there's no way you can disprove it; it's an abstract idea with evidence based in things like the theory of intelligent design and a personal knowledge of God, should one have any at all. These are not things that can be disproved or proved, similar to how one cannot prove or disprove love and grief.
However, I'd sooner put my trust in what is logical to me than what would amount to a gut feeling, and that's evolution.
)Renegade, you might want to check your facts. Evolution can and has been proven. What has not been proven is that all the diversity of life today has evolved from simple organisms, which themselves, according to this theory, arose out of inert material. It's beyond the scope of science as we know it now to prove things that occurred in such scales of time and space, much like it hasn't been proven that thermonuclear fusion is even the process that keeps stars "alive". There comes a point where there is enough evidence of an effect to justify confidence in the theory, in the case of the internal workings of the star, from spectroscopy and the observation of stars in different stages of their lives.
For some people, no amount of evidence would ever be enough to convince them that some theories are valid, much like no amount could ever disprove some of their ideas.
The difference between creationism and evolution is that one bases its ideas in measurable things, the other in the immeasurable. Perhaps the dawn of life is something that cannot be measured, or is not available to be such by our current approach, and perhaps this is the futility of the theory of evolution. Creationism, however, does not base its ideas on tangibility, inference, or the development of our understanding: it is what it is, though many people have different ideas about what it is exactly (the great difference between the two accounts of creation in the Bible was enough to explain to me the vast variety of different beliefs among Christians). Some people are convinced their interpretation is the correct one, others are waiting for one better than their own to come along, and some simply haven't figured it out yet. This is mental science, not physical science. The two are not parallel.
The bottom line to me: evolution would joyfully prove itself wrong if evidence to do so arose, and a new theory would go into the works -- such is a theory. Creationism is what it is and there's no way you can disprove it; it's an abstract idea with evidence based in things like the theory of intelligent design and a personal knowledge of God, should one have any at all. These are not things that can be disproved or proved, similar to how one cannot prove or disprove love and grief.
However, I'd sooner put my trust in what is logical to me than what would amount to a gut feeling, and that's evolution.
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually, the Bible was translated by man. Ever heard of the Johannine Comma?Cat Fuzz said:Creation all the way. By that I mean the literal, Biblical account of Creation. God is perfect, man is not, therefore, it must be man's data that is flawed.
/me waits for the "But the Bible was written by man" arguement......Classic.
BTW, Pheonix, it's six days not seven.
Re: 1 Jn. 5:7 said:
My vote is for both. I do believe in a God, but I believe he uses SCIENTIFIC methods to accomplish his goals. I find that proving Creation is impossible. There really is no way to prove that we weren't created 10 seconds ago with all the memories and knowledge that we have now. I'm sure that God wanted it that way
Last edited by a moderator:
