What about Creation do you have a problem with?

Question

I want to hear what you think is impossible or why creation could have never happened.

I will try to answer every question to the best of my knowledge.

That Jesus is the creator and died for our sins.

This is mostly for people who believe in Evolution.

I want some explanations. How am I going to prove that you information is wrong if I have nothing to go on?

I believe the earth is about 6,000 years old. I believe the bible from cover to cover because it is true.

Come on guys can't you defend you belief more than just scientific proof. Explain (main problem)

Answer 1

Absolutely nothing! Makes perfect sense to me.....a lot more sense than trying to bend your mind around a spark setting off a big bang, or a piece of slime turning into every living thing we know today, or a universe of stars, suns, planets and galaxies whirling around in a set order in quadrillions of light years of space without some control. And, yeah, where did that spark or piece of slime originate from???? I've never had an evolutionist answer that one yet....the "theory" always starts from something. Only God can make something out of nothing.

Answer 2

Okay trying to cover some of the issues brought up by all of the people here, please have patience.

Problem, if you believe in the Bible that God made everything in the way it says, but a day was actually millions of years, then how did the plants live without the sun for millions of years? It couldn't have happened, so unless you want to change the order around, and if you do that then basically you're saying the Bible is not really God's word so there is no real need to read it or listen to it at all.

The issue presented about how could there be a day when there was no sun. Or how could there be light when there was no sun is easily answered in later parts of scripture. It says that God is the light, has a lot of metaphors and direct statements that God is light. So basically a day could occur, not just in the theory that the Earth is flat, but in the idea that God served as the light source. Also a day would be measured by either the passing of 24 hours, or through the time it took God to do what He did on any given 'day' which was equal throughout. It's pretty complex, I'll admit so I might be bombing this part but I think you get the idea. Oooh fun fact: evolution was based on the idea that the cell was very simple, Darwin didn't know that. His original theory wouldn't have worked without the cell being simple. Just a counter to whoever said that creation happening in 6 days could only be possible if the Earth was flat.

I like how people criticize the explanations for how dinosaurs could have fit into the creation story, but not so much on how dinosaurs went extinct. I love one theory: they died from their farts. Anyway, the theory I find to make the most sense is that dinosaurs, being a part of God's creation and following the Bible as true fact (I know redundant, but sounds funny) then they did exist with Adam. Noah took baby dinosaurs onto the ark with him, and Hovind (yes the fraud) explains the rest for me. Some issues might be wrong or right, but I'll take him up on this point.

Okay so creation could not be possible because of ALL the science that says evolution is fact, scientists have created life from dirt, and the Earth is millions of years old. Okay, let's dissect this argument and point out the flaws. The only observed 'evolution' that has ever occured or been observed is speciation. For ex. I mean a dog producing another breed of dog. No sane person disagrees with that, and most people think that wolves produced all the dogs there are now. HOWEVER, what has not been observed is what animal made the wolf? So species to species is okay, but not jumping from one family to another, which is part of evolution. There's NO science that has evidence for how that happened. The 2nd point is just a plain, flat-out lie. As far as I have heard, the only breakthrough that science has been able to do is make a few amino acids, but there are some big flaws in that experiment. 1. Not enough amino acids to create even simple life. 2. The product was filtered, with most of the solution being toxic to life. 3. Where would scientists get the dirt to begin with? Finally the Earth is millions of years old. So far every, single experiment that calculates the age of the Earth has been horrible flawed. Carbon-dating, tree rings, ice rings, geological strata, etc. It doesn't matter if they all get similar results every once in a while. Heck, if any other machine kept producing the same result, but we knew it wasn't valid we wouldn't accept the data so why do we do that with the age of everything? Because it supports a popular scientific theory.

If you have any issues with my science feel free to argue against it. Do not just attack me saying I do not know what I am talking about, saying I am a religous fool. If you have a point to make show me where I am wrong, but do not be a coward and cover your ears, saying, "I can't hear you, science is correct."

Answer 3

Christianity has a creation story.
Buddhism has a creation story
Greek and Roman mythology has a creation story

...and so on and so on.

They all imply that there was a deity up there on a cloud waving his hands around like Mickey Mouse in "Fantasia" going "Now I'm gonna make some trees! POOF! Now I[m gonna make a few lakes! POOF!" It doesn't make any sense, and reads like a fairy tale.

Besides, the only real "proof" that it is a fact is the Bible. The Bible is a book written like men. The only way to prove it is by using circular logic (God created the Earth because the Bible said so, the Bible is truth because it's God's word, God is truth so the Bible is true), which doesn't prove anything.

It also doesn't take into account things like dinosaurs (I've heard a million different "interpretations" that range from "the word day is allegory" to "dinosaurs never existed and it's a trick to make the satanist scientists sound right") when anyone with a shred of common sense knows that's BS.

I could go on, but I need to finish my salad.

Answer 4

I'm sorry, what is the evidence for creationism? Dogma is not evidence. ID was totally debunked in science, and then in public at the Dover PA trial. Creationists have a old book of myths that was written by stone age nomadic goat herders who considered the world flat, to sun to orbit the Earth and that the moon shone with it's own light. Evolution has 150 years of science behind it. All the evidence gathered in that 150 years agrees that evolution by natural selection is the best explaination of the variety of life on the planet, and that there is zero credible evidence against it. The only thing that continues the argument is that some people prefer dogma over reality.

Answer 5

My favorite collection of responses is that creationists say evolution cannot be since we think that the universe evolved from nothing except dust. We should accept creationism since it says we were created from absolutely nothing.

IF everything could be created from nothing, however it may have been done, then it should still be able to be done, in some manner, in this day and age. A miracle on occasion might be nice, yet there is absolutely no evidence of either of those things happening, except by anecdotal evidence, but then I hear that same anecdotal evidence each Christmas when the news stations report a sleigh and 8 tiny reindeer having been seen over my city.

But, life, in an evolutionary fashion, has been created in the lab. They have actually created life, from the dust creationists think from which it cannot be done. Also, I have seen the process of evolution, before my eyes. I have never seen a miracle or something created from nothing so I am more inclined to believe evolution rather than creation.

Answer 6

I have no problem with it. I see it as a spiritual, not literal, explanation for events the writers of the time would have had no notion of, or understanding of--Big Bang, evolution, etc (which is why parts of Genesis have similarities to the local myths). Adam & Eve were the 1st human-types to have souls in my book.

Ah, not Creation, but what about the reference to the Sons of God lying with human women? Just before Noah in Genesis. I've always wondered about that.


look, you aren't going to accept scientific proof/evidence, so why should we bother to bring it to you? (& by saying you can't refute it, you are opening yourself up to a lot. It helps to understand your opponent's side in a debate, so you can make the proper responses)
Can't you just accept that people believe different things & let us worry about what happens to us in the end? Worry about yourself. When you're at one end or another of a spectrum & holding fast, not even God's voice from the Heavens is likely to change your mind. Evolutionists won't accept religious evidence, and creationists won't accept scientific evidence, no matter how convincingly presented.
I stand in the middle, & firmly believe that God created the universe in all its glory--all the stars, the planets, other galaxies, all of it; but that He also started the evolutionary process. To me, the scientific evidence is compelling enough to be believable, and since I have not denied the existence of God, it follows (my own form of circular logic, no doubt) that He did that. I think that to nurse a creation through stages is no less a sign of power than what is described in many creation myths as well as our Bible.

Answer 7

Okay, here's my problem with creation... which creation story should be believed? The oldest known creation story (from the Mediterranean, that would be the one of Egyptian origin) or one of the newer ones that are obviously based in part on the older creation stories, simply with slightly different details and names changed to promote the idea of originality?

Here's a link to an Egyptian creation story that predates Judaism. After reading it, can you give me a good reason to believe the Judaic version above it and the theories proposed by people who gather evidence and form theories based on all aquired evidence? http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/leg/leg04.htm

You can also use this website to look at just about all of the other creation stories that man has taken the time to write down thoughout history. There's a lot of them, and none of them are exactly the same, although they do have common themes and similarities when you limit your research to particular geographic areas.

Answer 8

Do you mean the Genesis story or god made the big bang? Or perhaps the Finnish creation story of the girl falling from the sky (I like that one, quite poetic) or the Germanic one of the earth made from the bones of a giant? There's loads to choose from, so can you be more specific please.

The Genesis stories, Adam and Eve, Noah etc are bronze age myths, that have their origins in Sumeria with multiple gods involved. If you believe that one then you should really accept the Sumerian gods, since that is the authentic version.

Answer 9

The real problem? the really big one? if there was creation, then there is a creator, and if there is a creator, then each will be required to answer for their belief or non belief. As in our society today, no one, wasts to accept responsibility for there actions. to some, saying 'there's no proof, they think will work like a "get them out of hell free card"

Answer 10

I believe in evolution AND the existence of a Divine Being.
So too do most educated theologians and the vast majority of clergy in the Western World.

Creationism is mainly a US thing and in the US it is mainly a Bible belt thing.

If you want me to believe Genesis is the literal, scientific truth in every aspect, THAT is where we will have problems. Most, Christian and non-Christian believe it is allegory and not literal in every sense.

Answer 11

because in BILLIONS of years we have found no proof of god's existance, we have found fossils from early life marine animals, fossils from giant bugs that once wandered the earth, giant lizards even hobbits (ok, a group of mini-mis).

but no evidence of some magical creator who for some reason was extremely active about 5000 years ago for a period of about 5000 years then absolutely nothing.

also the time frames of the bible don't match up- so if you interpret it strictly (as christians do) then you get a load of nonsence which we know to be absolutely false based on the time of the world and of evolution of species.

if you read it more loosely then religious beliefs can fit in with what we know, and they can think of god as the catalyst for these changes, but not to have waved a magic wizard mickey wand to make brooms dance and animals come to life out of nothing.