No, creation means creating something perfect first time. I there was a god, there would not have been evolution - god doesn't need evolution. But evolution is a proven fact, so there's no god.
clickclick, You are utterly misguided in assuming that creationism is supported by science - creationism postulates that the world was created by a god - science has never proved such a thing, nor can it be proved or scientifically probed. It just shows how you never think about what you say, or maybe you cant think at all.
Still havent taken me up on that offer huh? Why is that not surprising and you keep pming me? Im going to have to do something about that.
I said that creationism is consistent with scientific evidence. If creationism is the antithesis of evolution and the theory of evolution fails on many levels than you can safely arrive at creationism which is consistent with.
There is nothing in creationism that dictates that a species could not adapt or have certain degrees of differences within a species. So the talk about creationism dictating perfection is bogus.
__________________
Last edited by clickclick on Feb 10th, 2005 at 01:22 PM
I'm not talking about differences within a species or adaptation - that is not evolution anyway - EVOLUTION IS MUTATION FOUND FIT BY CHANGING NATURE, BUT I WAS REFERING TO THE PRIMARY NOTION OF THE CREATION OF THE WORLD WHICH IS WHAT CREATIONISM SAYS - CREATION OF THE WORLD IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, AND CREATION OF THE WORLD IS AFTERALL WHAT CREATIONISM EMBRACES AT ITS CORE.
well which one do you agree on then answer yor own question so i understand your point of view to be honest your are right in parts about me btu what you fail to see that perfection lies within the beholder
god believes that everyone is perfect and beside nothing can be proved so niether one can be trully correct
without a doubt evolution is more scientific. creationism is based on belief. But if you believe the origins of creationism then you can make the rest scientific. i dunno if that makes any sense at all....
I am not the least bit surprised that one might say that "evolution is more scientific". With no offense intended however, this is the result of dishonest teachings. Some people believe that evolution is the theory of science and creationism the philosophy of religious zealots. In truth though, evolutionism is the philosophy of atheists and naturalists. Creationism is a philosophy of theism but unlike evolution, it is not refuted by science. Now if evolution is the antithesis of creationism, why would one continuing parading around the failed theory as opposed to the congruent one?
As to the subject of dishonesty and misuse of science by naturalists, consider this. Should somebody have a reasonable objection to their theory (as there are so many reasonable objections), then they are met with hostility. This is because what is being purported to be science by naturalists, is most certainly NOT.
__________________
Last edited by clickclick on Feb 10th, 2005 at 08:10 PM
how are you suppose to refute a thing that cant cling to a single fact at all, all is based on faith.
its like you cant scientific or with substantial evidence refute this sentence "There is no god".
At least evolutionism have something to show. I think the evolutionists are getting closer and closer to nail the last nail of doubt into the minds of the faithful of a supernatural omnipresence omnipotent being.
A lot of evolutionists are actually deists, it is the biblical stuff they refute not a god.
For those who dont know what DEIST is it is people who believe that god created the universe and then left it alone to develop it self.
Last edited by finti on Feb 10th, 2005 at 10:40 PM
Well said Finti...... as I have stated before, it is my belief that the universe was created, swirled out of chaos or whatever.... then it was allowed to develop all by itself.... this seems to me to be the simplest answer that fits all the facts... and I dare say William of Occam would stand up and support me...
Well, either things were created by a creator or they were created by random chance. If the theory of evolution (random chance doesnt work) while creationism does, then what is the conclusion? I could go on and given many reasons why creationsm works where naturalism doesnt, many that I havent even cited previously. I dont believe evolutionism has anything legitimate to show in support of itself either because the things that are being uncovered, refute it.
This particular matter is not of which religion you believe, that wasnt my focus in this. The particulars were about creationism vs naturalism/theory of evolution.
As to clinging to facts. What IYO consistutes such?
If the schools would teach both creationism and evolution then I think it would let everyone think for them selves instead of what our curriculum is telling us. If we lived before the 1950's our who conversation on this topic here would be quite a bit different because all that was taught up until that time was creationism.
"If the theory of evolution (random chance doesnt work) while creationism does, then what is the conclusion?"
Where do you get the idea that the theory of evolution "doesn't work?" If it "didn't work," it wouldn't be a theory. As was stated in the other evolution thread in the GDF, scientists don't just go, "oh, that sounds interesting, let's make it a theory!" And as for your earlier comment about being met with hostility if you disagree with evolution... I'm not sure if you realize that Darwin was met with hostility when he questioned Christian creation.
"I could go on and given many reasons why creationsm works where naturalism doesnt, many that I havent even cited previously."
So why don't you?
"I dont believe evolutionism has anything legitimate to show in support of itself either because the things that are being uncovered, refute it."
And precisely what are these things being uncovered? You can't just say, "well, evolution is false because of some recent discoveries." That is totally illogical, to say something about certain scientific discoveries without telling what they are.
Go here if you want to read a very long conversation about creation vs. evolution and arguments against a great number of the discoveries that claim to disprove evolution...
In Darwin's Bio. near the end of his life, he confessed that he was a believer in God and found it interesting that his theory was taken so seriously. It was only a theory.
KMC Community Forums
True or False
Feb 9th, 2005 03:14 PM
without a doubt evolution is more scientific. creationism is based on belief. But if you believe the origins of creationism then you can make the rest scientific. i dunno if that makes any sense at all....
