Question for Creationists (with no offense intended)?

Question

This is a little difficult since there are so many kind of Creationism out there but...

How certain are you about two of your beliefs.

Are you more certain that life does not appear on this earth the way it does because of the process of Darwinian evolution, or are you more certain that the Bible is pretty much the one true book of God.

Compare the two concepts. Are you more certain of one than the other (if so, which) or are do they have about equal certainty in you mind?

Hmm, not to sure what to make of the responses, it appears that only about half of the people understood the question. I will take some of the blame for that as I was the one who wrote it.

delsydebothom: you have misunderstood a little. The queston reads "Are you more certain that life does not appear on this earth THE WAY IT DOES [emphasis added] because of the process of Darwinian evolution..."

It was more a question about certainty.

Answer 1

I am infinitely more certain that the Bible is the one true book of God. That's not blind faith, that's simple logic.

Answer 2

Well, considering Science is about to make creationism and intellegent design a reality (Darwinism and Evolution will remain a Theory for the here and now) with the first artifically made cell. They're making one from scratch. About two or three dozen scientists are working on this independently. One Harvard Professor says making a cell membrane is easy.

This, will once and for all prove that Life through WILLFUL INTENT is the ONLY way we know that life can be created.

Until such a time as you find a primordial pool of sluge with no life and set up cameras and document the first RNA structures spawing without the intervention of a creator, evolution as a METHOD OF CREATING LIFE will remain a theory.

See, that's the hickup. Few religious people are skeptical of the process of evolutionary changes, but the concept that LIFE EVOLVED FROM INORGANICS SPONTANIOUSLY is going to be impossible to prove.

So most Religious people can easily say Darwin has some crediblity, but God started the process by which evolution began to do its thing.

Even Darwin, if I'm not mistaken, didn't say his theories included the first creation of life. He just talks about the branching of the spieces.

It is the Atheist scientists who purptrate the concept that there is a self-maintaining perpetual motion cosmic casino and it threw a lucky 7 and that's how we came to be.

It's gonna be near impossible to prove that.

Scientists, on the other hand, are proving with a little brain power you can make a single celled "creature" from scratch.

When this happens no one can say life cannot or is not intellegently designed they will have to start teaching creationism and intellegent design in schools.

In 50 years every school child will know those terms.

The funny thing is Atheists poke fun at Sky Daddy blowing on some dirt to make man, but the concept of a pool of sludge spawing life accidentally (which can't be proven either) is a reality.

If you go talk to the Native Americans they will tell you the wind spirt and the water spirt and the Earth sprit got together and created life by joing forces.

When push comes to shove it all sounds like Genesis.

Answer 3

I believe we still don't know the true heart of Creation. It's acceptable to say that we are likewise Creators ourselves since we know we were given Creative abilities through being made in their image. So you wonder- if we ourselves could have created physical bodies through our own creative means. But we have proof of contact from higher beings that came from the stars/heavens, there's more writings of this than there are books in the bible.
Yet,there's still a missing link gene, one that if found can create a living being, it isn't on this earth because Scientists have and still are, trying to locate it. Silently, our government and specific scientists are searching the heavens for this missing gene. This is why they are trying to land a rocket onto a comet. They want that soil sample because through computer reenactments they see that when mankind formed, a comet had hit the earth. Now, such a notion does not go against the bible because it is stated we are made from dust, but it didn't say earth dust mind you. Native belief claim we came from the stars, the Pleiades star system, so who is right?
And if the government found out tomorrow that that one little gene was found on a comet, would they tell us about it?
And if so, how would religious conglomerates react? Would they lose control that has been instilled among the masses of people in this world? Would we get a sense that we had been lied to for thousands of years so the high power figures can keep us controlled and altered?
And, if ancient people had this awareness of this gene from the heavens, wouldn't people wanting to be leaders try to kill them off (and did they)? To keep this secret quelled and the masses of people to believe in only what's told to them?
And why would the governments of this world want this gene themselves? To create a race of people that could or would do or be what?
If you asked me I would say that Creationism is at a first grade level, (if that much). There is much, much more being left out of the picture, things that we are not being told or maybe never will be in order to avoid a very violent confrontation of religious leadership, government leaderships, and conflictive public masses of people who just can't decipher who is right or wrong anymore.

Answer 4

Let me try to understand your first question...are you more certain that like does *not* appear because of the processes of Darwinian evolution--well of course I'm certain of that, since Darwin barely touched on origins. His main thesis about natural selection and evolution was what set him apart.

Now, I'm still in the process of weighing the "irreducibly complex" argument--viz. how to interpret the existence of simple single-celled organisms which have an incredible network of interlocking parts, so dependent on each other that if any one of them were to be removed, the cell would cease to be functional. Much has been written on both sides, and I'm trying to cut through the tendency of both sides you rely on their power of assertion.

Anyway, that's really peripheral to your question, but my observation of both creationists and evolutionists has led me to believe that both tend to over-simplify the issues involved, and ascribe a certain value to their arguments, which are really not supposed to be the object of the study. The evidence is. Unfortunately, a man cannot escape the condition of being a man, and so any interpretation he has of what he is observing is going to be tempered by his philosophy. To be disinterested in the pursuit of knowledge is to cease being a man. This is why I believe the study of philosophy is so important.

I don't think we can yet tell if evolution, in se, has any advantage over the idea that we all squirted out of a log. That was hyperbole, so don't take me too literally ;).

As for your second question, I believe in Jesus. I believe the Gospels are, first of all, historically reliable. It was only after a long period of agnosticism and research of every alleged contradiction, historical and theological, that I could say to myself, "I believe this to be true." Not necessarily divinely inspired, mind you, but historically accurate eyewitness accounts. As for the rest of the Bible, the Gospels record that Jesus gave Peter, as well as the other Apostles collectively, the authority to bind and loose on earth, and that this would be recognized in heaven. In my conviction that God cannot lie, I came to the conclusion that He would not bind or loose anything that was a lie--thus, what the Apostles bound or loosed must be true.

I also studied the Apostolic Fathers--the disciples of the Apostles, who knew them and heard them preach. These men attested that the Apostles had handed down their office to them. Thus, I became a believer in Apostolic succession. Direct successors of the Apostles were the ones who acted as witnesses to the books they had received from their forebears, and in the 4th century, these successors together declared (bound) what books were of Apostolic authority and which were not.

I believe that the Bible, as we now have it, is the Word of God, because the Church that God founded declared it to be so. I believe this more powerfully than any theory of origins.

As for how this works with the first two chapters of Genesis is a seperate thing, and I think I'll save it for another question ;).

*edit

Okay, I see your question. The process of natural selection (and artificial selection) is observably one of the major factors that make life what it is today, and why it will be what it will be tomorrow. So, I'd say I believe both equally.

Answer 5

Hi and good morning....This is my opinion on your question. I'm a Christian, born and raised and I believe in my Father. I also believe that God inspired man to write His book (The Bible). However, when it comes to the book of Genesis when God created the earth and the heavens and all life, I feel that there is a possibility that God created all life but evolution finished where God left off. I believe that God and evolution both had their hands so do speak in the creation of life. Have a great day!

Answer 6

Here's a funny response...

It was a serious exploration into the flaws of Darwins arguments eventually led me to question more and more the "absolute tuth" of evolution. And the more problems I saw with evolutions arguments...the more I began to see design. (oh, for the record, it wasn't emotional arguments that swayed me, it was the mathematical probabilies that continued to mount in favor of design)

So...it wasn't the Bible per say that convinced me of creation...it was critical reasoning when applied to the arguments of evolution.

(Am no way arguing all evolutionists are atheists. What I do believe is there are some evolutionists who refuse to consider alternative arguments because of the conclusion that will be drawn)

Answer 7

I am certain that Darwinian evolution is false as it has proven to be by science. Consequently, the definition of evolution has constantly changed to keep the theory alive among teachers and some scientists who refuse to consider creationism or intelligent design.

The Bible is certainly the true book of God but it is not a science book and was never meant to be but instead a book of faith.

In Christ
Fr. Joseph

Answer 8

God created the world and all that's in it -in six TIMES and
the seventh TIME He rested and is still resting. In ancient
Hebrew the word " yom " was also used for TIME, as well
as DAY. King James didn't know that when they translated
the Bible into English. I do believe in " natural selection "
which is not the same as " evolution ". Man kicks back and
watches TV. God is watching us and answers prayers from
time to time. Hope that helps.

Answer 9

I'm not certain about either, that's the thing. I mean, I get Evolution, i really do, but it doesn't answer a lot of questions.
And the same is true of Creationism. One i can see with a logical mind, one with faith. I have days where one seems right, days when the other does.
For me, the best way is to try to reconcile the two together. And I'll probably get a lot of stick for that. But i]'d rather do that than profess to be certain about something i simply CANNOT be certain about.

Cos after all, who can be genuinely totally sure about it?

Answer 10

The bible being the true word of God. Because even when applied to my life in a spiritual young person, it has proven itself to be true. Now, as I am older I am absolutely certain of it.

Answer 11

this is EASILY and correctly answered by saying that the Bible consisting of 66 books written by men who were guided by God's spirit is completely trustworthy and truthful, and FULL of insight and wisdom pertaining to life on this earth.

God, and His Son, Jesus Christ, created the entire physical universe and all life to be found in it. God, and His Master Worker Jesus Christ created all the different 'kinds' or species with instinctive wisdom; for instance - enabling monarch butterflies to perform the amazing migratory feat over several generations. They also enabled those different 'kinds' to be able to diversify, or adapt, and be somewhat differentiated; yet - they are still of the same "kinds" or species.

what darwin observed in a few differentiated birds didna change them into new species. those birds remained the same 'kinds' as their isolated cousins, and in fact could still reproduce with them; just as a moose deer can and HAS reproduced with the same 'kind' - an elk deer; just as an elk deer can and has reproduced with the same 'kind' - a white tail deer. Shall i go on about tigers and lions? 'oh my!'

don't mention the dinosaurs.... the Bible does not specifically tell us about these, but it does mention the great sea monsters...who knows what those were?... i do not find ANY reasonable basis for believing that God must have created the entire universe in 6 LITERAL 24 hour days.... i can discern that God is unaffected by physical time, and His formation of the physical creation did occur in 6 EPOCHAL stages, just as Genesis describes in simplistic terminology.

i will completely trust in the Bible (which has lasted for over 3,500 years) over 'modern' criticism inspired greatly in the 1960's by a bunch of hippies out to crush and obliterate any inclination of decency and morality and Godliness.