Why is it easier for many theists to believe in creation than evolution?

Question

What evidence is there to support a young Earth with non-evolving life forms? Where did new organisms continually come from throughout our history? How do we have starlight from billions of light years away reaching us if the Earth has only existed for 10,000 years? Did God just place it in the universe after everything else was here for billions of years? I mean surely you guys can't really believe the Bible literally.

Thanx for that insight countrybumpkin. Could you ask the big guy to get me a cup of Mountain Dew?

john s: ANSWER THE QUESTIONS
how's that?

Fine, I will just ask each question one at a time since no one has the integrity to answer them.

Answer 1

In the world we live today, most people are dumb. They just haven't got the education or the brain cells to understand how evolution works. Couple that with the fact that religious freaks have, for 2000 years, been murdering everyone who teaches anything different and you have a bunch of blank people who smile all the time and believe in creationism. Their answer to almost everything is "God must have done it and humans are not supposed to understand how or why." That is the answer they got from their priests who are also dumb, blank people.

Answer 2

Ok i will attempt to answer your questions.
Qu: Why is it easier for many theists to believe in creation than evolution?
Ans: God created everything. And Christianity is believing in God.
Qu: What evidence is there to support a young Earth with non-evolving life forms?
Ans: Formation of polonium halos in granite (www.halos.com). Micro-evolution occur. Macro-evolution doesn't occur because we don't see intermediate lifeforms,whether in fossil records or in real life. All we see are fully structural and functional organisms like Apes and humans, remaining the same
Qu:.Where did new organisms continually come from throughout our history?
Ans: what do you mean? They were created, just weren't discovered yet.
Qu: How do we have starlight from billions of light years away reaching us if the Earth has only existed for 10,000 years?
Ans: most creationist and bible literalists believe the earth is about 6,400 yrs old. Concerning star-lights,one good explanation is that they were created and placed there. Moreover, "light years" is a measure of distance and not time.
QU:Did God just place it in the universe after everything else was here for billions of years?
Ans: No God created everything (Universe,earth etc) in 6, 24 hrs days. He is Omnipotent and Omniscient.
Qu:I mean surely you guys can't really believe the Bible literally.
Ans: Why not?

Answer 3

Do you really want an answer, or do you just want to blow out all these regurgitated meadow waffles.

edit: It is easier to believe because all the evidence seems to support creation and not evolution. Scientist works on models every day. There is a creation model and an evolution model .The same evidence is applied to both. The creation model is favored by the evidence more that the evolution model. There is no verifiable proof of anything on the earth being older than about about 5500 years old. The best radio-metric dating techniques are inconclusive at best. Scientist use the index fossil to date everything that can not be done with carbon-14, which is very limited and flawed. The index fossil method is based on circular reasoning. The index fossil is dated by the rock layer it was found in. Once the index fossil is established then the fossil dates the rock layer. Bottom line. They do not know how old anything is. Anything over about 5500 years is speculation based on an assumption, How dangerous us that to accurate dating?

Answer 4

*sigh* Not all THEISTS believe that way. You all use that word as synonymous with Christianity... there are others of us here. I do not believe in a young earth. I do not take the Bible literally. I believe the earth is billions of yrs old. I also believe in evolution. THere is nothing that states if you don't believe in one you can only believe in the other.... They can be believed together. Cause nothing in evolution really states WHERE the material came from (outer space doesn't really count... how did it get there? lol)... just what happened to it here on earth.

And, yes, Christians can and will take the Bible literally... most of them anyway. I'm not sure why, though. It's hard to rationalize such things in the face of so much other evidence... I wonder if they do self-hypnosis? Or just turn the blind eye?

Answer 5

John S had a lot of answer, you are not just smart enough to see it,how's that?

I understand that the age of the universe is important to you. To me more important point is is not when, but that universe was created.

Creation is easier to understand. As we have seen, the universe exploded into being out of nothing. Since the universe -including the entire time-space continuum- had a beginning, it required a Beginner no matter how long ago the beginning was. It also required a designer. WE can debate whether the assumptions that are made in dating techniques are valid. But we can perhaps agree that this creation required a Creator.

You have to have a lot of faith to be darwinist. You have to believe that , WITHOUT INTELLEGENT INVENTION;
- Something arose from nothing ( origin of the universe )
- Order arose frm chaos ( the design of the universe )
- Life arose from non-life ( which means that intelligence arose from non intelligence, and personality arose from non-personality)
-New life forms arose from existing life forms despite evidence to the contrary such as
-genetic limits
-cyclical change
-irreducible complexy
-molecular isolation
-nonviability of transitional forms and
-the fossil record

The evidence is not too good for macroevolution. But what about theistic macroevalution? Perhaps what can't be explained naturally makes good sense if you add God to the picture. If there were evidence for God and for macroevolution, then there might be a reason to combine the two. But as we have seen , there is not evidence that macroevolution has occurred. It is not like you have contradictory evidence: some evidence that points to microevolution, and other evidence that disproves it. If you had, say, a fossil record with millions of transitional forms on one hand, but irreducibly complex creatures on another, then perhaps you could sugest that God guided evolution through those unbridgeable gaps. But since that is not the case, it seems God was not needed to guide macroevalution because there is no evidence macroevalution has occured!!!

Finally, what would the evidence have to look like for creation ( Intelligent Design ) to be true? How about:
- A universe that has exploded into being out of nothing
- A universe with over 100 fine-tuned, life-enabling constants for this tiny, remote planet called Earth
- Life that:
- has been observed to arise only from existing life ( it has never been observed to arise spontaneously);
- consists of thousands and even millions of volumes of empirially detectable specified complexity ( and is, therefore, more than just the nonliving chemicals it contains );
- changes cyclically and only within a limited range;
- cannot be built or modified gradually ( i.e., irreducibly complex );
-is molecularly isolated between basic types ( there is not ancestral progression at the molecular level)-leavs fossil record of fully formed creatures that appear suddenly , do not change, and then disappear suddenly

An honest look at the facts suggests creation, not macroevaluation, is true. As we have seen, atheists have to work really hard not to conclude the obvious. That is why they need to have a lot more faith than we do!!!

Notice, I have not been quoting Bible verses to make this point. I have cited scientific evidence. So this is not a battle with science versus religion; it is a battle of good science and bad science.

I think that the only reason darwinists want to have the children learn only evolution theory at the school, because if the children are being taught the SURGE evidence, showing them the complexity of simplest life, making distinctions between micro-and macroevolution and between forensic and empirical science, or exposing the problems with macroevolution, the children would be able to see all the evidence and make up their own mind. Darwnist will go to great length to suppress the evidence than allow it to be presented fairly.

WHAT WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL ABOUT TEACHING THE SURGE EVIDENCE? NOTHING. SO WHY DO WE KEEP ON INDOCTRINATING OUR CHILDREN IN A FLAWED AND CRUMPLING THEORY THAT IS BASED ON MORE PHILOSOPHICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS THAN ON SCENTIFIC EVIDENCE - PRO AND CON - AND LET THEM MAKE THEIR OWN MIND?

Answer 6

Yes literally. The Bible says He placed the sun and the moon in the Heavens, the sun to light our day and the moon our night. It says He put the earth on the ocean, that He can walk through the ocean, that He created all living things and when He takes His breath away they die. I believe everything that is written because it is the inspired word of God, and God cannot lie.

Answer 7

Smart people take no translation literally ,with out first hand knowledge, or the witness of two or three reliable witnesses. the Bible even says in the mouth of two or three witnesses a thing is established I believe this is true, many things written and re translated are not witnessed three times in the Bible I would hold these suspect. I am a Christian who searches for them.

Answer 8

well, i don't believe the earth is as young as some people say, since creative "days" aren't neccessarily 24 hour days, but more like a "back in my day..." kind of thing.

Anyway, the probability of life generating randomly out of an ideal stew of nonliving material is one in 10^40,000. that stuff has to randomly generate into the various proteins, then those proteins have to perfectly align themselves in various ways and so on; it's incredibly complex. that's not one in fourty thousand, that's one in 1 with 40,000 zeros after it. it's like randomly numbering every atom in the universe, and having someone pick them out one by one in order. anything with probability lower than 1 in 10^50 is considered mathematically impossible.

Answer 9

That is the question! Where indeed did the ability for all things originate? Please! The belief that all that is in the Universe is quite by accident is preposterous. It is a much greater leap of faith to believe it is all an accident. If it were who caused it? Accidents don't just happen they are caused. Despite the popular belief that accidents can't be stopped.

Answer 10

I totally agree. On one hand, life evolving from nothing over time, into many different species is totally unbelievable. But show them some divine spiritual energy that created everything and made people out of dirt and you got yourself some truth!

Answer 11

Theism is easier to understand. The people who rely on organized religion are naturally already so imbicilic and feeble-minded that it would require a, "miracle," just for them to grasp the concept of natural selection.