Are you an evolutionist or a creationist and why

[hitch0403]

Well said JJ....im being a good boy!!!

[BJohnsonPP]

Nothing can come from nothing.It's a mathematical impossibility.You might want to take your own advice.

I believe you mean something can't come from nothing but regardless, you're the only one claiming this. You're claiming your god came from nothing. So, by your own admission, your god is an impossibility.

So, unfortunately, you leave here with nothing, but thanks for playing! I hope you had a good time. See you next time folks. 

[jford87]

I have a problem with faith. I am not capable of believing in something of which there is absolutely no proof. Therefore, I am an evolutionist.

[bremer51]

Falconer02,  I got a nice chuckle from your blatantly biased definitions of an evolutionist and creationist.  I believe in the divine creation. I also believe that evolution has occurred and continues to occur.  For me, its not either-or

[lvstephanie]

Falconer02,  I got a nice chuckle from your blatantly biased definitions of an evolutionist and creationist.  I believe in the divine creation. I also believe that evolution has occurred and continues to occur.  For me, its not either-or

I tend to agree in that I feel that believing in evolution does not mutually exclude the belief in a god. I do believe in evolution, the Big Bang theory, and other scientific theories while at the same time I believe in the Christian God. I think these scientific theories are just expressions of the tools that God used to "create" the universe. Math and science has revealed a beauty, simplicity, and power to the underlying mechanics of the universe which I feel is a glimpse at an aspect of God as creator.

[Kirenisa]

a little bit of both if that makes sense?

[BJohnsonPP]

By just jumping in, I forgot to point out that creationism and evolution are not opposites. Creationism has to do with origins and evolution simply tackles how life changed once it was already here. Still, one is science, one is not. One has evidence, the other does not.

[vp44]

I am going to shoot the sh** here. If Scientists would not scientific things and Humans would not suggest it. What is the need of each? We as humans question and somebody need to have a half a** explanation.

[BJohnsonPP]

I am going to shoot the sh** here. If Scientists would not scientific things and Humans would not suggest it. What is the need of each? We as humans question and somebody need to have a half a** explanation.

I don't understand this comment at all 

[vp44]

I am going to shoot the sh** here. If Scientists would not scientific things and Humans would not suggest it. What is the need of each? We as humans question and somebody need to have a half a** explanation.

I don't understand this comment at all 

Yeah I hear ya. Exactly what it was intended to do. I don't understand this ?? given. Creationist - the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist. Evolutionist -  a person who believes in or supports a theory of evolution , especially in biology. What is the difference between the 2. I probably should of just asked this question instead of babbling out gibberish just to see who is paying attention.

[BJohnsonPP]

Well, I actually explained that in a comment just above yours. Maybe we posted around the same time.

Creationism and evolution are not opposites. You can actually be a creationist and an evolutionist because one (creationism) is the belief that a supernatural being created everything and all life, and the other (evolution) explains how life changes over time.

There isn't a conflict between the two, but creationism has no evidence to support it and evolution does.

[lvstephanie]

I was just going to refute the idea that the two can co-exist, and was looking at Wikipedia to ensure that how I define "creationism" was indeed what others define it as... And I found out that I was incorrect! In fact, from my searching, I found that there is indeed a field of discipline known as "evolutionary creationism" or "theistic evolution" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution). It essentially is the idea that God created life using evolution as the means for doing so. This idea came around during the tail end of the Age of Reason as a way to describe how humans were created by God without the necessity for miracles or other forms of spontaneous generation. And it sounds like some of the theories were the groundwork for Darwin's Origin of the Species.

It's more or less what I believe, although in some ways, I feel that this area of study may still be too anthropocentric (humans being the central purpose for the universe) for my liking, namely when the article started going into hominization (or the process by which humans are produced) and it said that many versions of theistic evolution incorporate some type of "special creation" where God infuses the corporal human with a soul which truly distinguishes humans from lesser animals.

My beliefs are more along the lines of a less anthropocentric view of the universe. That when God created the universe and instituted evolution as a means to create a being in God's image and likeness, God didn't direct evolution to such a point that it would create Homo Sapiens, but rather that evolution by itself was bound to create some being (not necessarily humans, and not just relegated to only humans) that held characteristics similar to God such as an intellect, eye for beauty, compassion, etc. Thus it allows for aliens to also be created by God via an evolutionary path.

BTW, how I originally defined "creationism" was how BJohnsonPP defined it as "the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist".... The problem that I have with that definition is that last clause "substantially as they now exist" meaning that each species was individually created as is (with certain differences like eye color or body size being insubstantial things that don't have a bearing on the development of the species). That there was no ancestral organism that other species emerged from. By this definition of "creationism", it would in fact mean that the differences between a chimp and a human are substantial enough that each would be created by God separately rather than having the two species evolve from some common ancestor. This is the view of "creationism" that I have a hard time accepting.

[BJohnsonPP]

BTW, how I originally defined "creationism" was how BJohnsonPP defined it as "the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist"....

That's not my definition. Believers believe a god poofed things into existence. In what form and at what stage of the evolutionary process? I don't know, but I don't really care. They can coexist if believers arbitrarily choose where creationism ends and evolution begins. Basically, where ever they decide god decided for evolution to kick in. There's no evidence for a god and therefore none for creationism, so, whatever they decide the specifics are, is pretty meaningless.

Theistic evolution, which you linked to, is an unnecessary term which just boils down to "God did it". After scientist put their time and effort into actually figuring out evolution, believers come along and say "well, god made it all happen". It's their go to move. Let someone else do the actual research then just say "God did it" at the end of it all.

[hitch0403]

I am a bit confused here.How can 1 believe in evolution and creation together?If a creator started a process for life,creation to begin then obviously thats creation.Evolution <and i am not sure how to explain this>starts from nothing.Even the simplest things have to have a creator.The car u drive,the comp ur on,your fence,your tv,etc etc etc.

The main reason for evolutionists is a strong independence NOT to be accountable to a creator.INDEPENDENCE to decide what is good and bad as Satan deceived Eve into thinking.NO doubt it has always been a thought in mans thinking with the help and influence of the devil.

But the creator doesnt force anyone to want to live by HIS rules either.We arent robots.The shape of this world has seen the results of Satan and man governing this system.As scripture says "the whole world lies in the power of the wicked one"Look into Adam Lanzas eyes <killer of the kids last year>and tell me he wasnt under demonic influence.

[lvstephanie]

BTW, how I originally defined "creationism" was how BJohnsonPP defined it as "the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist"....

That's not my definition.

Oops, you're right. vp44 was the one that supplied that definition. The definition that you gave for creationism -- "the belief that a supernatural being created everything and all life" -- is more in line with what I found on Wikipedia. However vp44's definition was more of how I previously defined creationism, which tacks on that additional clause -- that things are created substantially as they now exist -- meaning that there has been no substantial change from the point when God created them. It is this definition -- which stipulates that the things created are substantially the same then as now -- which cannot coexist with the idea of evolution, since evolution's fundamental argument is that species substantially change over time as natural selection dictates which traits are deemed more valuable for the survivability of the species, and actually leads to divisions in a species to form new ones. So while the definition you and Wikipedia gave for creationism does allow for ideas like theistic evolution, I'd say that the definition provided by vp44 does not allow for the mutual existence of these ideas.

However, I do take exception to your statement that scientists do all the work, and believers just come after the fact and say "God did it". If you actually looked at the history of science, including those in the field of biological evolution, you will find that most of the scientists were devout believers. Many felt that science and mathematics was a way of more closely understanding God, and not as a way to discredit God's existence. If anything, the early scientists (talking about during the Age of Reason, when the scientific method was articulated) were more Protestant than Atheist in that they believed more in advancing human knowledge than in relying on tradition whereas the Catholic Church was more conservative in keeping with the ideals of tradition. However going against church doctrine and tradition is much different than going against the belief in a god altogether. It's much the same as how Martin Luther was against the traditions of the Catholic Church yet was still a very devout believer in a Christian God. It is only a more recent phenomenon that more scientists are becoming atheist, seeing that as science is capable of explaining more about the universe, that the need for belief in a god is unnecessary.

As for what hitch0403 just said, I'm not sure where you've gotten the idea that evolution starts from nothing. I know that JediJohnnie has also mentioned this, and I too was baffled by his comment. Evolution states that living things are continually changing with the passage of time; some of those changes being drastic enough that it results in the formation of new species. But it still relies on the fact that there was some common ancestor that the new species came from. The theory of evolution also wouldn't go against other theories and laws of nature, so it'd still have to abide by the law of Conservation of Mass -- that matter / energy can neither be created nor destroyed. The only thing that I'd hazard as being the rationale behind the claim that evolution starts from nothing would be if you were to extrapolate evolution backwards, there'd come a point where there was no previous life form from which ancestral life could evolve from. If that is the case, then your argument is more against the modern ideas for the origin of life on the planet and not on the theory of evolution. In other words, you can still postulate that God created that earliest life form, and through evolution all other life forms came into being, which would satisfy both the ideas of creationism (in the broader sense of the term) as well as evolution.