Creationism or Evolution?

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by pro2A, Feb 8, 2009.


Which do you belive in? (See OP)

  1. Creationism.

  2. A mix of the two.

  3. Evolution.

  1. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    Which do you believe is correct, and why?

    Personally I am a mix of the two. Where I can see scientifically that we have as humans have evolved, I also agree that we had to come from somewhere. To which I believe God (an omnipotent being) created the universe to evolve in to what we are.

    If you read Genesis in the Bible the first 7 days generally fall in line with how the universe, stars, earth, creatures and man were created scientifically.


  2. EXQEX9

    EXQEX9 Yep.

    I'm pretty sure a majority of people are going to agree with you pro, including myself.

    I think evolution is a process created by a god.
  3. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    I'm not a religious person and I do find comfort in the possibility of there being a divine being, but I'm not going to believe just to feel comfortable. I want to be compelled. As far as I'm concerned, evolution is almost proven and creationism never can be, so evolution for me.
  4. PretzelCorps

    PretzelCorps Registered Member


    I'd barged into this thread, assuming I was about to have the same argument I always do --> Creationism and Evolution are not opposites, as everyone constantly tries to make them appear. It seems the OP beat me to it.
    Creationism - An idea dealing with how everything originated.

    Evolution - An idea dealing with how things eventually, over a great span of time, came to be what they are now.
    I don't think it's unreasonable at all to believe in both, and I really hate to see them constantly put up as mano-e-mano (ie: "I don't believe in evolution because I believe in creationism," or "I don't believe in creationism because I believe in evolution.") Neither proves the other wrong.
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2009
  5. ExpectantlyIronic

    ExpectantlyIronic e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑

    I'm naturalistic in my thinking, and try to understand things without recourse to accepting supernatural explanations that lack predictive power. When it comes to such explanations, I'm not sure how you pick between multiple competing possibilities, and various naturalistic explanations that don't require serious ontological expansion are always available as options beside them.
  6. ILOVEUSA911

    ILOVEUSA911 Registered Member

    My beliefs are pretty much in line with yours.
  7. Stab-o-Matic5000

    Stab-o-Matic5000 Cutting Edge in Murder

    I have always kept the option of some form of outside force, whether it's God or whatever, creating the universe, simply because the idea of the universe suddenly existing out of nothing at random doesn't sit well with me. I know that it has been proven that particles will appear and disappear at seemingly random intervals, seemingly out of nowhere, but that raises a couple problems with me.

    The first problem being, if particles appearing out of nowhere is indeed what created the big bang, then how? Last I checked, the theory of relativity is still sound. This means that everything that exists now already existed as either mass or energy before the creation of the universe, meaning that these particles that spontaneously pop into existence were energy that spontaneously converted to mass for whatever reason. The logical conclusion I deduct from this is that the universe has always existed, even if it existed as energy before the big bang and not matter. So if these random particles appearing out of seemingly nowhere are indeed what created the big bang, my logic tells me that they were created from already existing energy in such a manner that it set off a chain reaction which led to the universe. Which brings me to my next problem.

    If these particles appearing out of nowhere can indeed lead to the creation of a universe, then why has it not happened again? I can think of a good explanation, being that there is not enough energy that isn't trapped as mass to create such a large chain reaction. However, that still leaves us with the question of why such a chain reaction happened in the first place. I personally don't place a lot of stock in the idea that things can happen simply at random. (I am aware of chaos theory, but perhaps I am just unable to grasp it.) If it wasn't a random occurence, then obviously it follows some natural law that we have not discovered yet. Which leads me yet again to my opinion (or theory, but I think that makes me sound too pretentious) that the universe has always existed in one form or another.

    So what does that big essay of a post have to do with creationism and evolution? My line of thinking is that if we accept that the universe has always existed in one form or another, and that if we accept that God exists and did in fact create the universe we know today through means of a planned chain reaction, then God either A: created the laws of nature or B: knows the laws of nature intimately enough to create the exact chain reaction that he desired, making evolution part of his plan.

    tl;dr: Creationism and Evolution are entirely reconcilable.

    As for my personal opinion, I hold the opinion that the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved by science, so therefore if we are talking in an explicitly scientific context, we can only really discuss the laws of nature, whether or not God created those laws or not. Does that make sense?
  8. Smelnick

    Smelnick Creeping On You V.I.P.

    I don't believe that creationism and evolution go hand in hand. I don't discount evolution though. Evolution made it so that we have green frogs and blue frogs. Evolution (or Adaptation) made the differences within species, but I don't believe that man could be created from a little single cell that happened to break off a rock, fall into the other and start randomly mutating etc. How is that any easier to believe than 'POOF!, the earth was created'

    I believe that God created the earth, and not 6 billion years ago or however many the textbooks say, but 6000 years ago, in 4000bc is when the earth was created. Yes, it's harder to believe, and prove. But that's what I choose to believe because of my faith. Also, I've never really seen a totally convincing argument in evolution's favour. Mind you, I haven't for creationism either.

    It always seems that, for every argument someone can make proving evolution, creationists come up with one disproving, and vice versa.

    I could take the opinion that evolution and creationism are inter-mold able, but then I'd feel like I was only doing that to fit in with the masses. I believe in creation whether or not it makes me look crazy.
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2009
  9. Rebeccaaa

    Rebeccaaa yellow 4!

    This would pretty much be my exact answer, nothing else to add really..
  10. Bjarki

    Bjarki Registered Member


    Life on earth is ruled by the laws of nature. I have no reason to believe why the first natural process was any different.

Share This Page