How many of you Creationist actually studied Evolution with an open mind?

Question

Okay, I'm not going to say much here. My opinion is that you either didn't bother to study it at all, or just rebuked every logical and factual bit of information because it threatened your belief. Which one is it? Or were you just not intelligent enough to understand the concepts of it?

There is no question that species evolved over time, changing and becoming more complex. If you deny this I will not even consider you opinion because you are too ignorant to accept any type of logic or scientific knowledge. Some of your ignorance shows through when I hear comments like: I didn't come from a monkey. Please spare me...

Leviathan, evolution contradicts Creationism in every way possible. This acceptance is only to spare Christians from being considered complete nincompoops and opt of all logic and credibility.

p_l_gray, from the start I was a Christian, then the flaws arose as I begin to really think about it. Why would I attempt to find logic in something I already found to be without it? I didn't jump out of the womb as a non-believer I became one from study and reason. You make no good point.

Answer 1

Critical thinking ability and/or the quality of open-mindness do not appear to be traits that most religious dogmas encourage.

Answer 2

Hi:

I have been a Christian for over 50 years and have had the experience of searching after truth. I believe that answers to many questions which we have is often beyond our ability to understand.

I think that the bottom line is that a thinking person would have to accept the fact that a highter power is in control of this earth and everything in it.
I do not think that we have all the answers in the
book of Genesis, but rather an outline as to the begining of things as we see them now. The sad thing with "evolution" is that it is a theory which does not acknowledge God.
I think the first statement in the Bible is significant: "In the beginning God..."(Gen. 1:1) As I look back to the dateless past I see God and as I look into the future I see God, He is eternal and is behind everthing which we can imagine including our "being" on this earth.

What I am trying to say, is that even though I am a Christian, I still have questions about "How did I get here"?, "Why am I here?", "Where am I going?" However, my faith is in One whom I can trust for my life now and rest on him for the future. I am willing to accept by faith his Word on creation and realize that he created me with a mind which is inquisitive and will always search for understanding about life. He has given us many answers which have helped us, such as medical knowledge etc. We accept those things he has allowed us to learn and look forward to the things he will yet give to us. I find it easier to accept "In the beginning God" than to accept some theory that puts our beginning in some ooz which somehow evolved to what we have now".
In summary, I believe that some Christians can be simplistic and think that somehow they know all the answers. This however, does not in anyway threaten the absolute truth which is found in God alone.

Robert

Answer 3

I am a creationist and also study scientific methodologies. May I share some science with you? Albert Einsteins general Theory of Relativity showed us that the universe is a closed system. This means that the space/time continuum was contained and the equations also showed that one of two things was occuring. Either the universe was collapsing in on itself or it was expanding. Albert added his work entitled Cosmological Considerations on the General Theory of Relativity to account for the neccessity of a steady state universe in order for Darwinian Naturalism to be mathematically probable. In this work he posited a cosmological constant in the universe to account for the steady state. Later he called this the biggest blunder of his career and others refered to it as "Albert's Fudge Factor." You see he did not want to be the one to open the door to a beginning for the universe because of the implications that might derive from doing so where a beginning implied a beginner. Edwin Hubbles discovery of the redshift in distant star systems proved that the universe was indeed expanding and other astrophysicists reworked Einsteins theory correcting some minor algebraic errors and omitted the unprovable constant and discovered that the steady state of the universe was indeed impossible.
From that point physicists calculated the reverse mathematical projectionals and discovered that a primeval atomic singularity with the density of 10 to the 96th power more than hydrgen and oxygen existed 1/10 times 1 billion billion billionth of a second was present and this point of relative reference has come to be known as "Planck Time" so named for its research fellow.
From this singularity the expansion propensity reached 3000 degrees before atomic structures became evident through the seperation of energy and matter. What this did was send radiation to the furthest end of the expansion and left behind what we know to be the cosmic microwave background radiation. This is not unlike the ripples upon the surface of a still pond when a single pebble is dropped upon its surface. Bell/AT&T researchers won the Pulitzer Prize for this discovery in 1965. Since then this information has been confirmed by the COBE satelite several times over. The problem is all these discoveries flies in the face of evolutionary wishful thinking that does not want to accept that the universe had a beginning. We all know this as the Big Bang Theory and many of those in the theistic bent do not realize that this supports the Genesis story of creation and because it comes from science it is seen as antagonistic to theological premises.
Darwin said that in the future if it could be shown that irreducible complexities existed that could not have possibly been created through gradualism then his theory for evolution would fail.
Microbiologists have found a plethora of exactly that.
However due to the blind smugness of those in academia who refuse to accept the idea that there exists a trandscendency of being which carries a responsibility for moral agency on the part of the individual the advanced discoveries of todays science is quelled and hushed, while the impact upon those like you and me who depend on academia to tell us the truth is immeasureable.
Check out the facts for yourself, if you dare.
I hope my ignorance is not showing through my comments as you have asserted.

Answer 4

I don't think the misunderstanding of evolution is due only to close-mindedness, but mostly just LAZINESS.

This is a complicated world we live in, and a subject like biological evolution can't be neatly summed up in one paragraph of layman's terms! But people don't want to make the effort to actually go to the library and read a science book, let alone learn some new vocabulary words.

Here's a challenge for people who sincerely believe evolution is bunk: publish a paper. Get together an article where you debunk evolution, and get it published to an actual biology journal. If you're right, you'll probably win the nobel prize. But the fact that evolution hasn't been anywhere near debunked yet might tell you that there's more to the subject than you've been lead to believe.

Somebody asked "How many evolutionists study creationism with an open mind?" There is nothing to STUDY in creationism. Creationism consists of nothing more than attempts to debunk evolution. It has nothing constructive to offer and ultimately boils down to the assumption of "complicated things we can't explain immediately must have been made by a big invisible guy." Trust me, I have looked at the best creationism has had to offer.

www.talkorigins.org

Answer 5

I read a book a few years back that showed both sides of the coin. I didnt have preconceived ideas at that time. Being that neither could be proven. But two things stuck out to me when I finished The one being they have found millions of fossils. But there is no record of any fossils that show a change going on. Nothing to show any creature evolving. The other that stuck out to me was that when things adapt to changes in their evironment they digress a bit. They lose something. I cant remember the word used. But things cant advance. So we couldnt come from a fish or ameoba or monkey. So I cant say that I agree with evolution. Not just from my own finding in reading that book which was non biased to say the least. There were many good points on both sides of the fence but those two stuck out with me. And I hear and read scientists all the time saying that evolution has to many holes in it to be true. Most scientists dont say there is a God but must be a higher power to help create us. Just my two cents on this from readings and speakers. Its not an intelligence question its opionated. Evolution is a theory. And I feel after readings and speakers it will be dropped to just a hypothesis. Who knows. Peace out...................

Answer 6

Please allow my ignorant recollection of my education. I am only 40 years old. I was taught in high school science that Nebraska Man was evolutionary fact and proven science. Also Pee King Man ect. This is now a hoax, yet 25 years ago it was absolute cutting edge science. Open any text book or scientific reference and you will see something called "revisions". Revisions are mistakes. I woke up when I was a Wiccan. I dated a High Priestess of a coven in Auburn Alabama who makes all her life decisions based on the readings of Totem Animal Spirit cards she bought at the New Age shop for ten dollars. She is employed by the Audio visual department of Auburn University and (reforms Christians) all day. If your mind is already deleting all this information then I leave you with this. If you can produce a transitional form I will get a Jim Darwin (Yahoo Version) Tee Shirt and wear it for a week.

Answer 7

Everytime I pick up something to read it is with an open mind.
Before you call the Christians unintelligent in your anger for whatever reason, people have choices of what they believe in.
I have studied all the religions in depth because I was curious about their beliefs. We Christians, no matter what religion people tack on themselves, are striving to go the SAME place...
I imagine some people will never venture out and read about anything other than their set religion, that is their choice.
I do believe in Creation. I have read books about Evolution and I didnt pick the book up and say, "This is worthless", I did read it..
I have a question for you though,
Have YOU ever picked up the Bible and read it with an open mind? Just curious

Answer 8

Saying that it can be studied objectively is true, but Creationists base themselves in faith, Evolutionists on empirical facts. Even though they both discuss the actual state of species and humans, I would leave each to it's on side since, when comparing the base used for their respective conclusions, it will never be possible. The moment you move from faith to facts, well it stops being faith. Some may call it ignorance, but I think they have all the right to do so, denying it would be ignorance initself.

Answer 9

Who said evolution is logical ? Is it logical to say that the living sprang out of non-living matter ? (even if a few hydrocarbons were created in an impossible primordial soup) Why are there not many more frankensteins on the planet today ? Why does everything look perfect and efficient ?
I am sorry to burst your bubble but evolution does not threaten my beliefs. It is the autocratic atheists hanging onto it (as in the ex-Soviet Union and China, etc) that threaten me.
Even evolutionists do not agree with each other. Palaentologists agree more with Jay Gould than with biologists like Dawkins and their evolution arguments are fatal to each other! (saying that all genus / species appeared around the same time vs saying new genus occurred through natural selection over millions of years) So which is it ? Can you decide if Jay Gould or Dawkins is correct ? Let me know when you have the answer to this "logical" contradiction of two contemporary theories of evolution.
If you ask me, Jay Gould makes more sense than Dawkins. The fossil record points to this. Sorry, Dawkins, bluster, unproved theory and words just don't cut it!

Answer 10

Have you, as an evolutionist, studied creation with an open mind?

Are you not intellegent enough to at least TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION the other side of the argument?

Creationists are ignorant? There are "evolutionary" factors that disprove evolution.

Answer 11

I'm a creationist and I've studied Evolution with a open mind. I found it lacking. I've also studied the Big Bang and found that it lacks as well. Don't you think its a little odd that the sun is at just the right degree away from the earth so that we don't burn but don't freeze? I admit it IS possible, but it seems so unlikley. Evolving constantly over time lacks to. Shouldn't we have started to see some changes? I mean, written history goes back awhile, and they almost seemed better than us, if you believe stories of giants and people living to extrodinary ages. It would almost seem that we're devolving, considering that we have more disease and we're dying younger.