The question is not creationism vs. Evolution. Most Christians today believe God created us through the process of evolution. Even the Pope and the catholic Church offically recognise that it is a viable theory for how God "Did It."
The Bible says "A day unto the Lord is as a thousand years (or maybe a billion)." Even if we believe God created everything, who are we to say that God's days are the same length as ours-Pretty arrogant. The sun was not even created until the third day so there could not be 24 hour days for the first two. The real question/debate is not how it was done but WHO did it.
Water is a contingency. People have indeed settled around water because of it's usefulness. That does not, however, imply that humans were "meant to" settle around water. God is the opposite of a scientific explanation because it is non-verifiable. Your two questions: why something and why life are both questions that are contingent upon us already being here to ask it. Why life? Because carbon is shot out from stars during their life cycle and through basic physics and chemistry life was a result. As far as existence versus non-existence, that's a great question. I think that odds are existence will occur, just because non existence has an infinite amount of time to "make something" of itself. I think there are moot questions, but not unanswerable ones. It just so happens that many of the answers don't invovle reason or causality in the way we interpret them. Does that mean we're less significant than we think we are? Absolutely. And it's understandable why we think so highly of ourselves. But as the only rational being we know of, we put some great responsibility on our shoulders to try to make our existence seem significant. Sorry, I started rambling. I'll stop now
Both ideologies are good. Since they are things in the universe that we still don't understand. God can be an answer. I can still say that the universe have been created by a giant chicken and I will be right since you have nothing to prove that I am wrong.
You are my hero Moegreche. Most "creationist" criticisms of evolution stem from a misunderstanding of ecological contingency...to be frank I was surprised to find people who understood this point on this forum.
I'm fairly sure it's probably been mentioned, but people ought to be aware of the historical source of this debate: essentially fundies from both the Darwinist and Church camps starting a political war.
At its root the theories of evolution and a creationist theology do not have to be mutually exclusive, the same as science and religion actually not being diametrically opposed *gasp*. Of course, if you insisted you could choose to reject one...but as to how useful this will be compared to reconciling and remaining open is questionable. After all, science is hardly intent upon demystifying the universe, so much as deepening our appreciation of it.
I personally dont believe in divine creation because of how much proof there is of evolution, but who was to say that Adam and Eve looked like us, they might of bin cave men? One controversy of evolution is "why are there still apes if we have evolved from them". If you know about apes there are many different types, gorillas, chimps orangutans and gibbons, they are the closest relative to us human beings. My theory is that there was another ape more like humans that stood on two feet, were knowledgeable enough to make tools to cut things and then we grew from there by experimenting with things and increasing our consciousness, then discovering fire. Devine creation has no proof, there is nothing on this earth that proves that we were created as we are. Only Christianity the Bible contredict science and fact. So without proof its a pretty stupid thing to say.
Funny, that, I just addressed something in that post in the "funny questions" thread. Your theory of the evolution of man reflects the basic theories that prehistoric studies have put forth.
In short, pay attention to the taxonomy- homo sapiens (i.e. humans) evolved directly from homo erectus and so on, but this is merely one genus of the broader family. The other apes that are still around comprise the rest of the family- and their evolutionary path theoretically diverged from humans much earlier.
Haha, I'm just remembering one of the early arguments refuting Darwinian evolution: "was my grandfather an ape!?"
Well, There is evidence. Well, there are 2 problems with the proof. Look, unless all human beings were idiots [I doubt] Or I'm betting that theres no reason that billions of people believe in Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Bhuddism? The reason is is that 1) There is proof, If it were all a bunch of fairytales and lies they wouldn't have fallen down for centuries. So there must be some support to it, people that believed it and had a tap to it spread it along, and those people showed there children and so on. Therefor, There must be SOMETHING that did all this, unless you think that people just wondered how they were created and made up God. Meh.
Also, what evidence is there? Our DNA is 60%-75% Near a chicken. And heck naw do I look like 3/4's of a chicken. Just because were CLOSE to apes doesn't mean anything, we may have just beat created close to them. It opens the possibility, showing that we may have evolved, but if we did, from what ape? No proof there, only Thought, Question, and Theory.
Again I must reiterate that we did not evolve from apes - we only shared a common ancestor. As far as DNA differences - even a 1% difference is HUGE is DNA standards. With billions upon billions of lines of code, 1% of that is really significant. Really, I think religion doesn't come down to people being idiots, it just comes down to people being scared or confused. We have no way of knowing why or how religion first developed, but we understand the function that it now serves. We could retrospectively apply it to early developments, but we don't really know what early humans felt and thought so we can't relate to their needs. My point is, the argument that everyone believes in god, therefore they must be right is a classic example of an argumentum ad populum.
Their brain washing people with this BS. I dont understand why people do this. There just confusing everyone, its the same will global warming. That site is stupid, i will never let my children see things like that. Its imaginary and i hope people who believe that garbage die a slow death.
Alright, I believe in Creation, and I will always fight to reject evolution as 'real science', but that website is not a good representation of Creation, I'll say that much. I agree, that deserves a small rofl.
