Where are creationist people today?Have they all split up and crying on their pillows.?

Question

I want a big challenge argument..Creationists can tell me what you think about.And I will throw towards your all sane thoughts. Who will win in my argument? An atheist or a creationist person.I dare you.

Answer 1

Wow very good explanation by Peg.

I did not cry on my pillow, but I do have my handkerchief to cry into.

To my mind the obvious question, as a Christian, that I see is this. What makes man think he is so wise to understand all of the earth and all living creatures and all living things in this universe to know absolutely without a shadow of a doubt that there is no creator? Doesn't that show that man is an arrogant being, almost childish? Are we to presume that within 500 years we understand all there is about what exists in this universe? Compare man's wisdom of 500 years to the existence of the universe of say 11 to 20 billion years old. What is man's wisdom compared to the age of the universe?

The crudest form of religion is a respect for that which existed before us. And an acknowledgment of a wisdom that caused man's intelligent being, and the perfect working of natural laws that explain the universe fairly accurately. With the added acknowledgment that man has a spirit, that part of him that can interact with an intangible reality of the mind, to contemplate a place that existed before the universe itself began. A place of no physical boundaries. His mind can go there too, and that is where the spirit of man can go also.

Answer 2

During 1800s, Anthropologists had a problem as to
how to classify human beings. One researcher
proposed the expression "intelligent animal".
After advanced studies on monkeys, it was dropped.
Another researcher proposed "tool using animal".
After observing some animals making wooden tools
and sharpening them with knife like stones, it was
dropped. Another researcher proposed "weapon using
animal". A decade ago, a rare film was shot by an
amateur in an African forest. One short monkey was
hit very badly by a big monkey. The short monkey
prepared a wooden knife using stones and hid it on
the top of a tree. After some days, when the big
monkey came to attack the short monkey, it ran up
to the tree for the weapon it has hid and killed
the big monkey. The one thing that the
anthropologists found with any group of human
beings, even if they did not have contacts with
the out side world for thousands of years, has
spirituality with some form of religion. So, man
is a "spiritual animal" if you want to call him
that way.

The Upanishads say that "Manush" (human) was so
named because he has "Manas" a mind higher than
that of the animals which realizes the divinity in
creation. It was present since the creation of
human beings. Religion is the characteristic
feature of most of the human beings. It was not
attained through reasoning using mind. Illiterate
tribes located in inaccessible forests also have
religion. It is as eternal and and as unchanging
as the Almighty. Disbelief by a few will not
affect it.

"The percentage of atheists in the world is less
than 5%"

http://www.positiveatheism.org/india/s1990c48a.htm

"Atheists are all scientists" ?

http://www.non-religious.com/statistics.html

Religion is not a blind following. It is a sub-consciously driven
group ritual. It calms the 'collective unconscious' mind. The
religious culture brings unity and belongedness among the followers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_unconscious

" Are Atheists More Depressed than Religious People?

In recent years, the view that religious belief and
participation in religious acts of worship has a positive
effect upon the well-being of man..."

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php

"Is a Belief in God Beneficial? Or, What's an Atheist to Do?

1) Religious attendance is correlated with longevity.
2) Religious belief has been associated with lower levels of depressive symptoms.
3) Religious beliefs may help with addiction.
4) Religious attendance is correlated with lower blood pressure.

http://jewishatheist.blogspot.com/2006/01/is-belief-in-god-beneficial-or-whats.html

Answer 3

i dont think there are many people left who believe the world was litterally created in a week, if thats what you mean.

but if you take that story as a metaphore, you'll notice that it actually matches up quite nicely with evolution, and remarkablely well with bigbang. now, they aren't perfectly in sync with the popular versions of those theories, but they do seem to be close enough that future observations could actually lead to an agreement.

...aside from that... if you're talking about creationism in the broadest sense: (more or less) that the world was created by a concious inteligence; the arguement for it is much stronger than you might imagine...

apparently, the way the universe is set up is such that all of the many different things needed for life are exactly the way they need to be. the universe appears to be 'fine tuned' for us, so to speak.
this is explained by (materialist/reductionalist) scientists by theories of there being an infinite amount of other universes, each with there own cosmic laws and types of existences. our universe being 'specially made' is then, illusory, as it is only an inevitable result of an infinite number of chances.

the other explanation is that there is indeed some sort of inteligence behind the creation of the world. mind you, not necessarily that the bible or any religion is actually true (but who knows...), just that creation has been guided by a conciousness. i suppose you could call this a type of inteligent design.

one theory presupposes an infinite concious inteligence. the other presupposes the preexistence of quantum laws, and
the existence of an infinite number of multiverses. both presuppositions are crucial to their theories.

there is -zero- universally accepted evidence for either theory. however 'the god theory' has an abundence of supporting accounts from mystics.etc.
its written off as being merely subjective, but its still something that one theory has over the other.and even if every single report of some supernatural spiritual experience throughout human history was only a hallucination or lie, the weight of the two theories is still equal.

So because they are equally matched in rationality and universally-accepted evidence; and because i tend to trust people rather than assume they are lying; and because statistically speaking, it seems fairly probable that out of the countless number of honest reports of mystic experience, at least 1 of them wasnt just a hallucination;
i believe 'He created the heavens and the earth'.

Answer 4

Creationists and evolutionists, all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.
Past and present

We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.

However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.

Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.

On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.

Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.

Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.

That’s why the argument often turns into something like:

‘Can’t you see what I’m talking about?’

‘No, I can’t. Don’t you see how wrong you are?’

‘No, I’m not wrong. It’s obvious that I’m right.’

‘No, it’s not obvious.’ And so on.

These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses.

It’s not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses—which means to change one’s presuppositions.

I’ve found that a Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist’s glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can’t put on the Christian’s glasses—unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions.

It is of course sometimes possible that just by presenting ‘evidence’, you can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense ‘on the facts’. But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than yours, that person will swing away from your argument, thinking they have found ‘stronger facts’.

However, if you had helped the person to understand this issue of presuppositions, then they will be better able to recognize this for what it is—a different interpretation based on differing presuppositions—i.e. starting beliefs.

As a teacher, I found that whenever I taught the students what I thought were the ‘facts’ for creation, then their other teacher would just re-interpret the facts. The students would then come back to me saying, ‘Well sir, you need to try again.’

However, when I learned to teach my students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher’s basic assumptions. Then it wasn’t the students who came back to me, but the other teacher! This teacher was upset with me because the students wouldn’t accept her interpretation of the evidence and challenged the very basis of her thinking.

Answer 5

Both have good thoughts. An atheist is one who recognizes that a God exists ( he needs this comparison point to be an a-theist), but chooses not to accept this theology, philosophy. He may be a creationist, but an atheist. At first there was nothing, no thing. That which created from nothing encompassed nothing, and from this nothing matter was seeded. These seeds evolved, a creation. A creationist many be a theist or an a-theist.