Who agrees,that the argument of Creationism VS BigBang&Evolution?

Question

The main point or base point that we differ is on the subject of PURPOSE.If you believe there's purpose and reason for everything you probably lean more towards God.And if you believe there's no purpose to anything,then you you probably lean more towards the theories of science,weather they be proven or not.

Who agrees&who disagrees?The main contention in the argument is weather or not the world and everything within has a specific purpose?Please Explain your reasoning?

Answer 1

Well I do agree that if you believe in purpose you will lean toward God. The world does have a purpose God made it with a purpose and the purpose it that we are to bring glory and honer to him in all we do

Answer 2

I am an athiest and I don't believe that things are purposeless. Just the opposite really, science beleives that there has to be logical rules for the way the universe works. These rules aren't always "common sense". For instance, Einsteinian relativity is a bit counterintuitive (that time and space are connected is a hard concept to grasp) but the main thing point of difference for scientists and religionists is that religionists believe that the Earth and humanity is special (in the sense that we are somehow elected by god and unique in the universe) and scientists do not.
But purposeless? No, not at all. Evolution serves a vital purpose- that of survival. You can't get much more purposeful than that!

Answer 3

"If you believe there's purpose and reason for everything you probably lean more towards God.And if you believe there's no purpose to anything,then you you probably lean more towards the theories of science,weather they be proven or not."

No, you have it backwards. If you accept evolution / big-bang you realize we have no purpose.

"The main contention in the argument is weather or not the world and everything within has a specific purpose"

No, the main contention is EVIDENCE.

It is VERY hypocritical of you to judge Big-Bang/Evolution proponents because a particular theory may not be 100% proven, while your theological beliefs have ZERO credible evidence at all.

How can you justify a belief in god withou any evidence, but at the same time insult others who hold to beliefs actually supported by evidence?

Answer 4

The sun cannot shine without the gases burning within it; the gases on the sun cannot burn unless it's at a specific temperature; our earth orbits precisely around the sun in such a way as to get the necessary heat that is needed for life to flourish here on earth; the orbits of the planets can only be held together by gravity; the earth spins in such a way as to keep one side of the planet from getting too cold or too hot; the vegetation on the earth cannot grow without proper sunlight and rain; the animals of the earth cannot eat without the vegetation; man cannot breathe oxygen w/out plants and an atmosphere that both give off oxygen; man cannot survive w/out essential minerals that happen to be found in our nice green earth; the oceans stay just far enough from the shores for people to continue to build life; you were born; you grew up; you happen to be on yahoo answers today; you are reading this message; God is calling you; (John 3:16) - "For God so loved the world that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life." Now......do you think everything has a specific purpose? Christ made everything including you (Colossians 1:16). Won't you come to Him and be saved? He will save you from every sin you have ever committed. You will have eternal life in Jesus' name. God bless you and praise the Lord!!!

Answer 5

Evolution works in a forward direction. Mutations happen. Some of them are carried on to the next generation in greater percentages than other mutations. And so on.

The arguments against evolution ALL work backwards. They assume the end result is the only possible outcome.

It's not about whether purpose exists or not. It's whether you insist that purpose is the driving force behind all natural processes.

Answer 6

You do seem to ask a lot of question, and most in this general area. WHY??? You may need to do some reading to answer this and most of them- consider epistemology and logic, and especially the subcategory of truth. Is truth beauty... science?... logic?... faith?... the senses alone?... mind?... only that which corresponds to reality? etc. How does one know? Can one really know? How does one know one knows? Your questions, while I think very important, require too much thought for most folks here.

And finally, to those who suggest that science is based on proof- nonsense- the first thing you learn in advanced research design and statistics is that few things are proven and more importantly, that science has a theory (thesis) which is at some point dis-proven by others (antithesis) and the emerging paradigm is the synthesis. Synthesis now becomes the thesis until an antithesis is developed and the cycle is repeated over the eons. Read Thomas Kuhn, Hegel, Immanual Kant!

Answer 7

I believe that every form of life has a level of consciousness that becomes the driving force behind the mechanism for its survival. I believe that evolution is not a mechanical creation alone. DNA and RNA will always have purpose no matter what creates. The dualistics physics of the universe creates cause and effect and from two opposing forces, we have a tree of ocilating chain reactions. At some point consciousness was able to participate in the physical world.

Answer 8

first of all, congratulations on being concerned sufficient with regard to the reality to question what you have been taught and certainly seem on the evidence. bearing directly to your question, an approach that could require the least substitute for you would be to anticipate that God particularly created Adam and Eve as defined in Genesis 2, yet that different human beings had already been created by using that element interior the path of the technique of evolution, in accordance with Genesis a million. Adam might subsequently be the 1st human to have a "residing soul", and could desire to nonetheless be the ancestor of all present day human beings. Genesis 2 mentions that purely before Adam there replaced into not a guy to until the earth, yet this could purely advise that the different human beings hadn't chanced on agriculture yet. this will additionally clarify how Adam's sons have been waiting to discover different halves and construct cities. The "days" of Genesis a million could desire to nonetheless be literal days, yet basically from God's attitude. God supposedly stands in terms of the international as an author does in terms of his e book. An author might take an afternoon to jot down some technique that takes tens of millions of years interior the timeline of his tale, and he might place that technique the two earlier or after something he'd written the day gone by. Given those assumptions, i'm not responsive to any evidence that could particularly disprove the activities depicted in Genesis 3 with regard to the autumn.

Answer 9

There are two separate issues. First, how? The big bang is close to a done deal, scientifically, and evolution IS a done deal -- it's a proven fact. But that does not preclude the idea that a deity set up the universe, with the rules that it now has, in the first instance. However, that idea is irrefutable, which means that it is useless: it can't predict anything. Which brings us to: Why? If you care to suppose a god, then you can suppose whatever motivation you please; if you don't, that is the end of it. But science cannot address this question -- science is restricted to refutable ideas.

Answer 10

This will probably sound condescending. Sorry.

Most people who believe in Evolution don't really care about the particulars. Just like most people who own cell phones don't care about how it works or where the towers are.

Creationists, however, cling to every objection and every unanswered question in the Theory of Evolution.

I suspect that Creationists need their belief in Creationism to help them see purpose to their lives.

On the other hand, people who believe in various forms of Evolution might find the Theory interesting, but find purpose in their lives regardless of the world's origins.

Sure, there are people who argue strenuously for Evolution, but those people are pretty rare in real life (or at least in my life they are.) But most people don't care about the details of Evolution.

So, I think Purpose is important for Creationists, but other people find purpose throughout their lives.

Once again, I hope that doesn't sound too condescending.

Answer 11

How can man be so arrogant to believe they know the purpose, if any, of the universe? You can say something like "the purpose of the eyes is to see" but that doesn't make it true, no matter how logical it sounds. A purpose is not even logically necessary.
So when I see arguments saying
"If the Big Bang happened, WHY did the Big Bang happen? WHO made it happen?"
...all I am reading is...
"I am ignorant and like to believe what makes my insignificant life seem worthwhile."