Third question...Adding to original question: Who has ever given creation a chance?

Question

Sorry , what I mean is if you have given creation a chance , What were your findings , your research, if you truely gave it a second thought, what were you positive thoughts, (if you gave it a chance, your thoughts must have had a bit of positivity about them).

Answer 1

Dear Sales Dude,

I notice by your profile that you have just started on Y!A (yahoo answers)

This question is asked many times on Y!A Usually people are either looking for support for their own opinion, are using this to spout off, or are using the question to ridicule others. People that spout off their belief system are many. (as an example the answerer named Gazoo) Many are rude, others are sarcastic, and some are abnoxous. I have spent many hours looking at both sides of the issue. I like your question because there does not seem to be any hidden agenda in your very neutral question.

There are many reasons why people believe the way they do. Usually people form their belief systems at an early age. When you ask this sort of question, people show back their belief system. It is interesting that most of the time the Evolution / Creation debate occurs in this forum, and not in the science section. I think this indicates that people realize that this debate is a spiritual one in essence. You will also find that for the most part people are labelled in this section more than in any other. For instance if I say I believe in creationism, the overwhelming negative responses will be about errors in the Bible, even though I said nothing about believing in the Bible. (again see Gazoo's answer) If I say that I am an evolutionist immediately I will be labelled as an atheist.

Until this point can you tell if I am a creationist or an evolutionist. I hope not.

How can I answer without being labelled as being one or the other.

Men of science have their belief systems too. If I use some of them to prove my point then the scientists I choose will be those that agree with me. This does not do much good. However, if one of these scientists who is a strong advocate for one side changes his belief system, that is powerful evidence for my point of view.

I hope all this makes sense.

What I am going to do now is to introduce you to such a man. The article is rather long, but I hope that it is interesting.


Academics viewing the universe through a narrow scope should rethink assumptions
Dallas Morning News
By Roy Abraham Varghese
December 15, 2004

Last week, The Associated Press broke the news that the most famous atheist in the academic world over the last half-century, Professor Antony Flew of England's University of Reading, now accepts the existence of God.(This is comparable to Hugh Hefner announcing that he is becoming a celibate.
At a symposium sponsored by the Institute for Metascientific Research, Flew said he has come to believe in God based on developments in DNA research. Flew, is the author of the book, "Darwinian Evolution.") Mr. Flew's best-known plaint for atheism, "Theology and Falsification," was delivered in 1950 to the Socratic Club, chaired by none other than C.S. Lewis. This paper went on to become the most widely reprinted philosophical publication of the last five decades and set the agenda for modern atheism.
Now, in a remarkable reversal, Mr. Flew holds that the universe was brought into being by an infinite intelligence.
"What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements together," he said. "The enormous complexity by which the results were achieved look to me like the work of intelligence."
Given the conventional wisdom of some psychologists that people rarely, if ever, change their worldview after the age of 30, this radical new position adopted by an 81-year-old thinker may seem startling.
But Mr. Flew's change was consistent with his career-long principle of following the evidence where it led him. And his newfound theism is the product neither of a Damascus road experience nor of fresh philosophical arguments, but by his sustained analysis of scientific data.
Mr. Flew's conclusion is consistent with the actual beliefs of most modern scientific pioneers, from Albert Einstein to quantum physicists like Max Planck and Werner Heisenberg. In their view, the intelligence of the universe - its laws - points to an intelligence that has no limitation - "a superior mind," as Einstein put it.
Not a few of our men and women of letters, it would seem, have been looking for God in all the wrong places. Those who dismiss God as a product of psychological conditioning or pre-scientific myth-making have not come to terms with the essential assumptions underlying the scientific enterprise.
Science assumes that the universe follows laws, which leads to the question of how the laws of nature came into being. How does the electron know what to do? In A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking asks what breathes fire into the equations of science and gives a universe for them to describe. The answer to the question of why the universe exists, he concluded, would reveal to us "the mind of God."
Last May, I helped organize a New York University symposium on religion and science, with the participation of Mr. Flew and others. Our starting point was science's new knowledge that the universe's history is a story of quantum leaps of intelligence, the sudden yet systematic appearance of intrinsically intelligent systems arranged in an ascending order.
Many people assume that the intelligence in the universe somehow evolved out of nonintelligence, given chance and enough time, and in the case of living beings, through natural selection and random mutation. But even in the most hardheadedly materialistic scenario, intelligence and intelligent systems come fully formed from day one.
Matter came with all its ingenious, mathematically precise laws from the time it first appeared. Life came fully formed with the incredibly intelligent symbol processing of DNA, the astonishing phenomenon of protein-folding and the marvel of replication from its very first appearance. Language, the incarnation of conceptual thought with its inexplicable structure of syntax, symbols and semantics, appeared out of the blue, again with its essential infrastructure as is from day one.
The evidence we have shows unmistakably that there was no progressive, gradual evolution of nonintelligence into intelligence in any of the fundamental categories of energy, life or mind. Each one of the three had intrinsically intelligent structures from the time each first appeared. Each, it would seem, proceeds from an infinitely intelligent mind in a precise sequence.
We can, if we want, declare that there is no reason why there are reasonable laws, no explanation for the fact there are explanations, no logic underlying logical processes. But this is manifestly not the conclusion adopted by Einstein, Heisenberg and, most recently, Antony Flew.
Roy Abraham Varghese of Garland is the author of The Wonder of the World: A Journey from Modern Science to the Mind of God (Tyr Publishing). He helped organize presentations by Antony Flew in Dallas on two occasions. Readers may contact Mr. Varghese through tyrpublishing.com.

I hope this helps

lots of luck in your new Y!A adventure.

I guess now I can say

God bless

Bryan

Answer 2

Well, I was taught many different explanations of how things started in school...the big bang, primordial soup, evolution and several different religious creation stories from different cultures. We were taught all without bias, we even had debates in class between religious and non-religious perspectives where half of us were to support one religious creation story and half support the big bang or whatever other theory. I was very interested in the topic and in fact that is what inspired me to read the bible, study various religious beliefs/faiths, gods/goddesses etc... I looked into Catholicism, Christianity, Pagan, Wiccan, Roman and Greek mythology, Egyptian mythology, Buddism, Hinduism, Norse mythology, Native American beliefs(Ojibway, Iroquois, Algonquin), Celtic etc etc. I looked into it all I read everything I could get my hands on about gods/goddesses and beliefs of many different cultures, I learned about every religion I could think of and I read the bible and I studied everything about it. In the end after all that inquiry I concluded that in all probability the creation story of the bible was just like all the other creation stories of all the other cultures throughout history, and furthermore that it was most definitely written by man in an attempt to explain what they did not have the science to discover.. just like all the other stories created in other cultures to explain the unknown. I didnt just jump to the conclusion that it was not a good explanation, I learned everything I could about all the explanations before passing judgement... in an effort to determine that. In the end I have to say that creationism is most likely not an accurate idea of how things began because it is not based on any real evidence or proof and is suspect because it was written by man hundreds of years ago when we were still quite ignorant of the world around us and looking for something to explain it all.. I clearly saw that science was far more advanced, more accurate and was much better qualified to answer the question and provide evidence to back it up. I also realize that I could be mistaken and creationism may be the true explanation... but either way it is science that will correctly answer both of those questions in time, since religion does not care to question itself. In my view science kills two birds with one stone... it can provide an explanation for the creation of our universe based on logic, and scientific evidence while at the same time questioning and searching for proof of all kinds of different theories... creationism, the big bang etc and will eventually be able to prove or disprove each one as we keep learning, eliminating one possibility after another until we arrive at the truth. That is much more desirable to me than just accepting creationism as truth without ever questioning again.. I believe we should never stop questioning until we arrive at a conclusion that is irrevocably supported by concrete evidence.

PS When I read the bible I thought it was a pretty good story and had some good ideas behind it, At this point I dont believe there is a god but I do not discount the possibility that he may exist.. I am still waiting on scientific proof of that so I will withhold my final conclusion until then.

Answer 3

I have looked at several of the propaganda sites. They jump to every possible conclusion. They argue mostly about minor details and skip the big picture. They use 30 year old theory to argue against rather than current thinking. They make broad denials of fossil evidence that is present. They skip over things like DNA regression studies. They won't ever address fossil stratification that clearly shows the order of evolution if not the age. They blow by evolution in things like cattle that was caused by humans.

My thoughts are simple. They are the worst examples of starting with a conclusion and trying to make the evidence match it. Good science starts with the evidence and tries to determine what it means.

Answer 4

Positive thoughts only? Okay, I thought the creation myth was a very nice story, and I can understand how an uneducated people might have believed it centuries ago.

Answer 5

Creationism doesn't provide any facts whatsoever to support it. It is based on a book of fiction. It's just like Scientology only without the aliens.

Answer 6

Good effen grief. The only thing to research is the bible and that is very unbelieveable. It was a great story when I was little...but since I now know better there is no positive thoughts on creationism.

Answer 7

it gave no explanations, just claims. when put to any type of question the only answer i ever got was always started as "i believe..." but no proof was ever provided to explain the basis for "i believe...." just excuses.

Answer 8

For years I was an advocate of evolution....but I came to realize the truth of Scripture AFTER years of college...and I found evolution theory to be totally unsubstantiated by facts....
I was lead into evolution like most, under the fasle illusion that the facts supported it...they don't and so I rejected it ...

I believe there had to be a Creator...so did most intelligent scientists.

Thanks for asking.

Answer 9

However it got here, it's here now. Isn't that good enoug?

Answer 10

"In the name of God, most Gracious, most Compassionate".

http://www.geocities.com/banadir2006
what the Quran says: The Quran says in reference to the status of Jesus as a Messenger:"The Messiah (Jesus), son of Mary, was no more than a Messenger before whom many Messengers have passed away; and his mother adhered wholly to truthfulness, and they both ate food (as other mortals do). See how We make Our signs clear to them; and see where they are turning away!"(5:75).
Allah says in the Quran regarding Trinity:"Surely, disbelievers are those who said:‘Allah is the third of the three (in a Trinity).’ But there is no god but One God. And if they cease not from what they say, verily, a painful torment will befall the disbelievers among them (Quran 5:73).
it is interesting to note that the term "son of God" is used in other parts of the Bible to refer to Adam (Bible: Luke 3:38), Israel (Bible: Exodus 4:22) and David (Bible: Psalms 2:7) as well. The creation of God is usually referred to in the Bible as children of God.
Let us look at what Jesus said about himself and about GOD Almighty:"I do nothing of myself (From the NIV Bible, John 8:28)""My Father (GOD) is greater than I (From the NIV Bible, John 14:28)""Father (GOD), into thy hands I commend my spirit (From the NIV Bible, Luke 23:46)""And Jesus said to him,‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.(From the NIV Bible, Mark 10:18)""No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.(From the NIV Bible, Matthew 24:36)"
Do these quotes suggest at all that Jesus is in the same level as the Creator of the Universe?---------
what the Bible says:
12:28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:(12:29, 32)"The Lord our God is one Lord"
12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. 12:31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these."Love thy neighbour as thyself."
12:32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he.

conclusion: jesus is not GOD, or the son of GOD.
or the trinity of GOD.
HE IS THE MESSENGER OF GOD[ALLAH]