Question:
defend yourself?
anonymous
2007-08-16 04:53:45 UTC
Are there anyone here that are pro-creationists? pro-evolutionists? neutral? If so, please tell me why you believe in what you believe in. Maturity and supporting detail are very much appreciated. :)
Eleven answers:
anonymous
2007-08-16 05:01:54 UTC
As much as I think the term "evolutionists" is silly, I suppose I fall under that banner.



As to detail, let's start with the basics



www.talkorigins.org
anonymous
2007-08-16 12:21:08 UTC
I believe exactly what the Bible teaches:

(which is directly opposite of the Creationists at the new museum they built)



And that is that this Earth is eons and eons in age, and there was even an entire earth age before this one we live in now.

Genesis states not that the Earth WAS void and without form, but that it BECAME that way. How did it become that way?

From the war where Satan rebelled and

when he was defeated, God destroyed that

first Earth Age (not the earth, not the terrafirma, only the AGE) and the Earth sat

still until a plan was formulated for the redemption of the people. Why did the people need redemption then, since this was way before Adam and Eve's sin?

Because when Satan started that war, many of our people followed him, and many others stayed neutral and didn't even care as long as it didn't affect them. This caused God to destroy that age that was, and bring in this second earth age, where each soul would come thru in the flesh, one time, to make an ultimate decision of who they would follow: Christ or Satan.

It is only true that Adam and Eve were the first to sin IN THIS AGE, but they certainly were not the first sinners, and the fact that the people needed saving has nothing to do with Adam and Eve.

The problem is that because of the Churches not teaching Biblically, people are unable to take off the blinders so that they could see anything previous to the past

6000 years or so. This Earth is incredibly old, and so are the souls who live on it.



We know from Scripture that between the first Earth age, and where you read in Genesis 1:2 and forward, an uncountable

vast amount of time passed; enough time to support life certainly, and for the earth to work in its autonomous design and processes.

Through the Sciences, we know that great

dinosaurs and other creatures walked the

Earth, as well as fossil fuels being formed,

etc...the sciences are wonderful, and anyone who does not celebrate the great finds of the worlds dedicated Scientists

are only cheating themselves.

The Scriptures (manuscripts) are clear on the fact that there are three total Earth Ages; one that was, one that is now, and one final one to come.

What I believe is the Word of God.

Unfortunately, whats being taught is mans

word, certainly not Gods Word. If Gods Word was being taught, you wouldn't see this controversy going on, because there

is no controversy in Scripture between Gods true Word and true Science. None.
vorenhutz
2007-08-16 12:33:43 UTC
i don't honestly feel that i have any 'beliefs' to defend in this arena. i suppose i have a degree of faith in the scientific method itself, which seems justified because it works. evolution is much more than the idea that humans are apes, i think it's too silly for words that this is controversial to some people. there certainly are some problems and controversies (the origin of life for instance) - otherwise there would be only librarians and no scientists. but the proposition that 'god did it' has never lead to new knowledge in science - it always amounts to giving up on the whole idea of discovery and exploration, it's a useless hypothesis. i would change by mind about that though if any creationist could propose a testable hypothesis that has not yet failed the empirical tests. (sorry hugh ross but merely stating that your model is testable does not mean it is testable).
kazmania_13
2007-08-17 01:19:15 UTC
Many people use evolution as the explanation for the origin of life. This is a cop-out because evolution only deals with the changes in living organisms.



There is of course no "scientific" explanation for the origin of life or even inanimate material for that matter.

The areas of study that deal with origins are religion and philosophy.



The excellent information given above by Martin is certainly scientific and supports those who see the absolute necessity for a designer.

It is not enough to just have matter, living or not, - it is also necessary to have processes for the organization of that matter.

We might find rocks randomly but for them to built into a usable building, a system for joining them must be intelligently developed.
technogiddo
2007-08-16 12:06:37 UTC
I'm a rationalist, so yes, I'm pro-evolution. Why? because of the overwhelming evidence around us. What other theory is there to explain how life is what it is?



I'm also very anti-religious. But before you get on my case take a look at this real life scenario- every year religious organizations get tens of billions of dollars in donations for what? Build another alter? Have another fund raising event? Open a creationist museum? While at the mean time scientists have to fight over every cent with a government that has no rational thought, trying to explain the necessity of researching alternative energy or explaining the revolution stem cell therapy can bring.



This is a crazy world, I'm just trying to make it right.
anonymous
2007-08-18 09:18:36 UTC
I'm a Christian therefore I believe in Creation. They really do go hand in hand huh? So I see Genesis for what it says . I don't sit around worrying about it though. there's too much to explore in the bible to worry about God's business.

I know He exists because we have a spiritual connection called Jesus. If you can take some time to talk to Him and listen.
anonymous
2007-08-16 12:10:13 UTC
Evolution is pretty simple, and all the evidence we observe about life support evolution.

Creationism is a last ditch attempt, by those conservatives, who refuse to throw out the old Myths in the bible, to try and come up with a formula that reintroduces Divinity into the diversity we observe in life.

what they claim is that, although evolution explains diversity of life very elegantly, a unneeded complication must be introduced, or people will come to ignore religion totally.
John C
2007-08-16 12:06:57 UTC
I don't believe in evolution because it is fact and thus does not require belief much like gravity. There is more than a mountains worth of evidence supporting it and that is why I accept it as true because it has gone through the scientific method.
?
2007-08-16 12:04:44 UTC
You love to debate -mnmsrgood4u



we can debate all night about this but it is to no profit (history tells us).



Lies are everywhere



you can only trust one thing
anonymous
2007-08-16 12:01:15 UTC
I don't find the need to defend my beliefs, or lack of beliefs. But at anytime, I'm willing to debate them.
Martin S
2007-08-16 12:14:30 UTC
Genesis 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 26 Then 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 birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."



Jesus warned us, "Take heed that no man deceive you." 1 And we do, indeed, live in the Age of Deceit. Our entire society is totally driven by many myths, none more basic or insidious than the convictions of Evolution, the religion of our age. (Dismissing for this discussion the observations of microevolution, the variations within species, but rather using the term in its connotative sense, referring, in fact, to biogenesis: the notion that we are all the result of a series of cosmic accidents.)



The ancient cultures worshiped gods of wood and stone. It is difficult to comprehend the insanity of paganism: who can tally the blood that has been spilled on the altars of the gods who are not and the demons who are! We, however, in our contemporary paganism, have invented the most insulting "god" of all. Instead of ascribing the awesome magnificence of the Creation to any of the false gods of the past, we have chosen to ascribe it all to randomness, or chance. That has to be the most insulting ascription of all: we have decided that no Designer was necessary - it all "just happened." "First there was nothing. Then it exploded!"2



The premise that we are all simply the accidental result of random chance underlies our entire culture, not just biology: the fields of psychology, our social and political sciences, our media, our entertainments, and, of course, the forced inculcation of our children in the government schools.



Darwinists love to postulate the "simple cell." With the advent of modern microbiology, we now know "there ain't any such thing." Even the simplest cell is complex beyond our imagining.



As Michael Denton has pointed out, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, each is in effect a veritable microminiaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up of 100,000,000,000 atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the nonliving world."4



The "simple cell" turns out to be a miniaturized city of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design, including automated assembly plants and processing units featuring robot machines (protein molecules with as many as 3,000 atoms each in three-dimensional configurations) manufacturing hundreds of thousands of specific types of products. The system design exploits artificial languages and decoding systems, memory banks for information storage, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of components, error correction techniques and proofreading devices for quality control.



All by chance? All without a Designer? (How do you define "absurd?")



At the moment of conception, a fertilized human egg is about the size of a pinhead. Yet it contains information equivalent to about six billion "chemical letters." This is enough information to fill 1000 books, 500 pages thick with print so small you would need a microscope to read it!



If all the chemical "letters" in the human body were printed in books, it is estimated they would fill the Grand Canyon fifty times!



Cell Replication



The details of cell replication are too complex to be described in detail here. A simplified outline is given below to illustrate the incredible process involved: 5



1. Replication involves the synthesis of an exact copy of the cell's DNA.



2. An initiator protein must locate the correct place in the strand to begin copying.



3. The initiator protein guides an "unzipper" protein (helicase) to separate the strand, forming a fork area. This unwinding process involves speeds estimated at approximately 8000 rpm, all done without tangling the DNA strand!



4. The DNA duplex kinks back on itself as it unwinds. To relieve the twisting pressure, an "untwister" enzyme (topo-isomerase) systematically cuts and repairs the coil.



5. Working only on flat, untwisted sections of the DNA, enzymes go to work copying the strand. (Two complete DNA pairs are synthesized, each containing one old and one new strand.)



6. A stitcher repair protein (DNA ligases) connects nucleotides together into one continuous strand.



Read and Write



The process described above is only a small part of the story. While the unwinding and rewinding of the DNA takes place, an equally sophisticated process of reading the DNA code and "writing" new strands occurs. The process involves the production and use of messenger RNA. Again, a simplified process description: 6



1. Messenger RNA is made from DNA by an enzyme (RNA polymerase).



2. A small section of DNA unzips, revealing the actual message (called the sense strand) and the template (the anti-sense strand).



3. A copy is made of the gene of interest only, producing a relatively short RNA segment.



4. The knots and kinks in the DNA provide crucial topological stop-and-go signals for the enzymes.



5. After messenger RNA is made, the DNA duplex is zipped back up.



Adding to the complexity and sophistication of design, the genetic code is read in blocks of three bases (out of the four possible bases mentioned earlier) that are non-overlapping.



Moreover, the triplicate code used is "degenerate," meaning that multiple combinations can often code for the same amino acid-this provides a built-in error correction mechanism. (One can't help but contrast the sophistication involved with the far simpler read/write processes used in modern computers.)



A Common Software House



All living things use DNA and RNA to build life from four simple bases. The process described above is common to all creatures from simple bacteria all the way to humans.



Evolutionists point to this as evidence for their theory-but the new discoveries of the complexity of the process, and the fact that bacterial ribosomes are so similar to those in humans, is strong evidence against evolution. The complexities of cell replication must have been present at the beginning of life.



A simple explanation for the similarities of the basic building blocks can be found if one realizes that all life originates from a single "software house." He is awesome indeed!


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...