ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

What Is Creation And Evolution

What do people mean by creation and evoloution?

Join Our Free Penpals and Take The Wisdom Bible Quiz
 ---prashant_roka on 12/7/05
     Helpful Blog Vote (3)

Reply to this BlogPost a New Blog



Evoloution says that we came from monkeys or a lower form of existance and that we just appeared out of nowhere - leaving no hope or purpose for humans. Creation says that we were created by God for a purpose, and molded with His hands as the highest form of being on Earth, and did not come from anything other than God Himself.
---Leslie on 1/4/07


Ben; What scientist said the earth was flat?
---MikeM on 10/10/06


As said earlier, scientists were wrong about the earth being flat so couldn't they be wrong about evolution? Look around and notice the infinite organisms and then look at the different, intricate design each posseses. Furthermore, look at the complexity of a single cell. Something must have created that cell. It's too complex to be the result of a mixture of some elements and cosmic energy from the "big bang." The intricacies of man is enough to cast a shadow of doubt on pro-evolution.
---Ben on 10/9/06


Check back on the 3 or 4 blogs concerning evolution over the past few weeks and the individuals of the '6,000 year brigade' clrealy make their case. Most i note here, do promote such things.

Does it matter? Only when they peddle it in the public schools, which is pushing sectarianism.
---len_k on 12/16/05


MP ... it was not you!
Blessings
---alan8869_of_UK on 12/16/05




len, If a person is ignorant of a truth, even to the point of professing disbelief in it, the persons ignorance does not make that truth nonexistent. A person can say "i don't believe in God, there is no God, or even replace God with error, foolishly thinking that if they deny this then they will not be held accountable." But denial of truth never liberates one from the truth, nor does it promote ones intelligence, for only in acceptance of the reality can one find true wisdom.
---Eloy on 12/16/05


len, As i stated in an earlier blurp or blog, the ancient hebrew word in Psalm 93 is "mowt", which is more correctly translated "shaken". This means that God set the earth in space and maintains it from falling from it's position. That is intelligence, but people who read English renditions of the Bible without at least researching the actual Hebrew and Greek and occassionally the Aramaic words can and often are led astray.
---Eloy on 12/16/05


Alan, you and I have had several discussions here regarding creation/evolution and whether or not Genesis is a literal account. We have disagreed but I hope I have never given the impression that I feel you any less a Christian than myself or others who do take Genesis literally. From other things you have said on other blogs I would say it is ABSOLUTELY obvious that you are saved and I'm sorry if others have told you, or implied, otherwise.
---M.P. on 12/16/05


One can say "I dont believe in the Pacific Ocean." Say I join a religion that helps me deal with past abuse,sexual emotional or neglect. It helps me get off drugs, the bottle, it saves my marrage, offers me fellowship etc. ONE of the beliefs is the non-existence of the Pacific ocean, therefore, subjective reality trounces objective reality, so pacific ocean, ergo evolution, is non-cogito "Objective reality pitted against faith is of no consequence."
---len_k on 12/15/05


A 'few' here say you MUST believe in a 6,000 year old earth, or you are NOT a Christian, but I will let them speak for themselves. 'Creation(ism)' is religious dogma, not science, it represents a small sectarian segment, fundamentalism, and i suspect most Christians ignore it. If one says 'I believe God created all thing' then that would be inclusive anyone not atheist,Muslims Hindus, etc., call that a generic creationism.
---len_k on 12/15/05




"belief" does not promote ignorance, nonbelief does.-? From the time of Constantine to the enlightenment religion was a great hinderment to science, history 101. Psalms 93 says that the earth does not move, that is ignorance, ever heard of Galileo? "Ignorant scientists" -? That is a straw man fallacy. Only those in medieval europe said such things, even the secular greeks knew the earth was round. The Bible is a book about salvation, not a science book.
---len_k on 12/15/05


MA ... I have been told that I cannot be a proper Christian if I do not believe every word of the Bible to be a literally minute-by-minute accurate account.
---alan8869_of_UK on 12/15/05


Alan, has anyone here on ChristiaNet actually told you that you cannot be a Christian if you are not a Creationist? I'm a Creationist, I absolutely do not believe in evolution but I do not think that this is a salvation issue nor do any other Creationist that I know personally.
---M.A. on 12/15/05


len, "belief" does not promote ignorance, nonbelief does. Thousands of years before science discovered it, Scripture stated the earth to be round and hung in space. Ignorant scientists believed the earth was flat, and if you walked to the end you would fall off the face of the earth. So who is wiser? the believer in God and his Word? or the nonbeliever, wise in his own foolish understandings? A nonbeliever scientist disregards the greatest source of all, namely, the Holy God and his Holy Word.
---Eloy on 12/15/05


Mod ... No I do not know anyone whose faith has been shaken by the scientific evidence. Those who believe in the 6000 year old earth just do not accept the evidence. BUT, as one who believes in an older earth, I have had my faith tested (and strengthened) by the strict creationists who have tried to shake my faith by saying I cannot be a Christian.

Moderator - To me it is not a heaven and hell issue and nobody has all the answers on either side. Sorry some have attempted to make it an issue with you.
---alan8869_of_UK on 12/15/05


Here is the issue. such a 'belief' completly precludes one from substantual education, thus promotes ignorance. Medieval Christianity (dark ages) was based on religious absolutes, be they Catholic or protestant. It was not until the enlightenment, fought -strongly by church/state regimes-that science and learning was able to flourish and throw off the stranglehold of dogma.
---len_k on 12/15/05


Read These Insightful Articles About Online Marketing


Mod ... a corpse said to be 11,000 years old would hurt the faith of someone who believes the erath is only 6,000 years old. And fossils in a museum, showing the ages that science has given them, would make those same people mad.

Moderator - I believe in a youth earth theory (not 6,000 though) and it makes no difference to me either way, nor have I ever know anybody that it shakes their faith or makes them mad. I was wondering if that was just Len experience mostly because of his upbring ie family's beliefs? Alan, have you ever known anyone that it shakes their faith or makes them mad?
---alan8869_of_UK on 12/15/05


A 'corpse'-should not hurt anyones faith, but it does. Perhaps only what some would call fanatics. In my frame of reference I have seen animated folks get rather hot under their skin. As an undergrad I had to spend many hours soring materials at a musium. Many fundamentalist visiting the musium would become agatated by the mere sight of fossils, animal or otherwise. I would ask why? I am related to such.

Moderator - Why would they get mad?
---len_k on 12/15/05


In California the oldest fossil find so far-is a woman who died near the salton sea 11,000 years ago, when the area was much wetter. She had a typical mongolian 'notch' on her spine, showing her ethnic backgroound same as the present native Americans in the area. To maintain faith do you just 'ignore' such finds? Do faith based presuppositions serve to cancel objective analysis?

Moderator - Why would a corpse hurt someones faith? I don't understand why you would think that?
---len_k on 12/15/05


Why unbroken? There are lots of lovely charts showing mankind gong back to austropolithicus, yet every time they get going, they die out and we wait another few thousand years till another try comes along. Last I heard, Peking/Java man were Neanderthals, and we are descended from Neanderthal.
---mike6553 on 12/13/05


Read These Insightful Articles About VoIP Service


I`m a "fundamentalist", and proud of it. But the most fundamentalists I`ve ever met arethe evolutionists, who imply ot to accept evolution as fact is to imply dark ages or stupidity. The fact remains, that under any system of science, evoltion fails at the first hurdle: proof. If we are evolved from monkeys, show me the chain of evidence.
What evidence?
1/ The common ancestor
2/ Where we branched from the monkeys
3/ Unbroken connection between us and the start. Emphasise unbroken.
---mike6553 on 12/13/05


nonetheless it's yours; otherwise there would be some commonality in the remarks here. Shows the wisdom of the 3rd article of our (U.S.) 1st amendment. Why would we want to subject anyone to this kind of repartee? Leave that to those who wish and they can send their children to private schools and they can then teach whatever they wish, including Evolution or Creationism, or both. Their choice but dont subject everyone to your own choices.
---Karl on 12/12/05


For all of the responses that are in this blog, come the reasons why religion is so difficult to have in the curriculum in public schools in the U.S. Most people want to have some kind of religious values taught in our public schools - but - it always becomes OUR OWN interpretation of this subject to the exclusion of everything else, even to the point of dancing on the head of a pin. Some will say it's not my interpretation but it's the Word.
---Karl on 12/12/05


Jehovah, El Shadday, created you to evolve from a child to an adult. Nothing other than man has the mind of man.
---gregg8944 on 12/11/05


Send a Free Easter Ecard


Why can the Intelligent Designer not have designed evolution?
---alan8869_of_UK on 12/11/05


Ulrika, I still do not understand why you say that an intelligent designer is a theory (God is the Intelligent Designer and He is no theory) so if you are not misunderstanding something I am misunderstanding you but I think I'll just leave it there.
---M.P. on 12/11/05


M.P. I am well aware that Intellegent Design and Evolution are not the same. They are 2 different theories. I told you that Intellegent Design is a theory, because I figured you would not want your God replaced by a mere theory, I don't either. It is the parents responsibility to tell their child about God, creation, and how to be saved. We can not have a false sense of security, that they will learn about God in school. Don't take my word for it, check it out online.
---Ulrika on 12/11/05


You can look up intellegent design, evolution, and creation online.
---Ulrika on 12/11/05


Read These Insightful Articles About Settlements


Ulrika, I think you might be a little confused about the terms that are being used. When people speak of intelligent design they are usually referring to God (maybe not always of course). Those schools that want God taken off the curriculum and wish to teach evolution as a FACT do not want to discuss intelligent design. Evolution and intelligent design do not go together. The Intelligent Designer - to most of us - is GOD and we do not want HIM replaced by a mere theory.
---M.P. on 12/11/05


Len K for the benefit of us lesser mortals, can you explain these words? cosmological telelogical ontological
---alan8869_of_UK on 12/11/05


Creation maintains that matter and organisms are made and maintained by a maker, namely, God. And Evolution maintains that matter and organisms were started by a cosmic bang and gradually developed by adapting to the environment. Creation is scriptural, God called things into existence that were not yet existing, and the scientific definition for evolution is not scriptural. Please read Genesis 1:1-3; John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16,17; Hebrews 11:3.
---Eloy on 12/11/05


ID argument is not a new one. Hume argued this 200 years ago, and of course St.Anselm 1000 years ago presented the cosmological argument. Anselm also presented the telelogical and ontological argument. I only argue that from a scientific naturalistic view, the ontological argument is the most viable argument for God. Natural selection is a self-sustaining process, but a simple ontology begs the question, a first cause.
---len_k on 12/10/05


Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Services


Ulrika: If intelligent design has nothing to do with the Creator God, then whom do you propose is the intelligent designer?
---jerry6593 on 12/10/05


So then if you should quit college if their are things they teach that disagree with your beliefs? Then education is therefore evil? That is mediveal Christianity. When Catholics or Protestants were in power it was called the 'dark ages.'
---len_k on 12/10/05


Ulrika ... Len is not saying that God was not the creator. All he is saying that God did not record in the Bible all the detail of the way he created the world, or its inhabitants. Neither did it recount all the miracles and words of Jesus John 21 v 25.
---alan8869_of_UK on 12/10/05


Jerry, those who want intelligent design taught in school, because it is a theory. It makes no mention of the Lord God of the Bible. Theory and faith are completely different.
Creation of the Bible and Intelligent Design are completely different. In AA they believe in a higher power. That does not mean they believe in God.
---Ulrika on 12/10/05


Read These Insightful Articles About Online Stores


God is creator- Psalms 8:3 19:1 33:6 65:6 74:16 89:11,12 90:2 102:25 104:2-5 136:5-9
---Ulrika on 12/10/05


Len K, I don't blame them for quitting the class. If a person doesn't want to believe scripture, that is their choice. I don't know how a person could be a Christian and not believe scripture, since Jesus is the Word. John 1:1-3,10,14
---Ulrika on 12/10/05


Read what the word says. What does Genesis say? Science has it wrong as the Bible is clear. Dinosaurs died in the flood.
---Robert on 12/10/05


I have read Dr. Behe's book on intelligent design, and he does have valid points. Individual cells do act as machines, their complexity, to Behe, is too complex to be the result of random (Newtonian billiard ball universe) natural selection. His points cannot be dismissed, but what he offers belongs in philosophy class, not biology class. His argument for God is cosmological, my argument for God is ontological, which in my opinion, is stronger.
---len_k on 12/9/05


Read These Insightful Articles About Business Training


In my college, none of the professors were atheist. Some were Baptist, others 7th Day, one an Anglican. As an example fundys try to truncate the biological time-line based ONLY on subjective faith based beliefs, and leave in place other non-questionable scientific data, then claim natural selection is not science. They offer subjective presuppositions as facts, and reject objective facts as 'non-science.'
---Len_K on 12/9/05


Ulrika, In college debate class we debated some fundamentalist. All they had was rhetorical responses and parroted bromides. In the end they all bailed, retreating from the podium as all they had was emotion. And as they only had emotion, they threw in the towel,and qiut the class. They had no understanding of dialectics, or the scientific method.
---len_k on 12/9/05


'Evolution is the atheistic theory that there is no special creation,'-That is ignorant as can be. Natural selection, evolution is NO prescription for atheism, to say otherwise is the fallacy of 'straw man.' You can take a long look at promoters of fundamentalism and find good, and very bad people. Trying to place Satan or God at the helm of science, or religion is a false duality. fundamentalism, Christian or otherwise has at some points in history has been very vile.
---len_k on 12/9/05


No Ulrika, evolution is not based on science. It is based on blind faith and wild conjecture, and it is unprovable using the scientific method. Creation is based on intelligent design (and a lot of power). Evolution is based on random chance providing increased perfection of design in violation of known scientific laws.
---jerry6593 on 12/8/05


Read These Insightful Articles About Software


correction-Creation is based on scripture, received by faith. from online, Skeptic's dictionary- intelligent design-theory that intellent causes are responsible for the origin of the universe and of life in universe and of life in all its diversity. It makes no mention of the God of the Bible.
---Ulrika on 12/8/05


epends on your approach to scripture and God's truth.
Creation is God's account of how He created the universe and made man a special creation, in His image. A creation worthy of salvation. Evolution is the atheistic theory that there is no special creation, that we are hereas the result of an accident. Take a long look at the beliefs those who support the relgion of evolution, and its anti-theistic teaching, and ask who do you choose to believe: Satan or God?
---mike6553 on 12/8/05


1. creation-is not a theory. It is based on faith.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis chapters 1 and 2 tell what order God created all things and then Adam and Eve. John 1:1-3 talk about Jesus and creation also.
2. intelligent design-a theory that an intelligent being created everthing, because everything has order.
3. evolution-is another theory that is based on science.
---Ulrika on 12/7/05


Generaly speaking: Creation = the believe in a Creator and intelligent design. Evoloution = the belief that there is no creator, no intelligent design. Creation requires a faith in an eternaly existent creator where as evoloution requires a faith in the eternaly existence of matter and chance. Either way, both constitute a what can best be described as a "religion".
---Bruce5656 on 12/7/05


Read These Insightful Articles About Advertising


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.