Are you an Evolutionist or a Creationist?

[bzcxx]

[nightdrot]

An evolutionist. However, that does not preclude what might be called a "creationist" dimension to the science. Indeed, one could argue that the fact of order in the universe - spontaneous harmony amidst what ought be chaos - is the physical proof, after all. As G. K. Chesterton put it, “It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.”

In that odd sense, it is arguable that everything is physical proof of God's existence. In that connection, you might also check out Augustine's and Aquinas' proofs of God.

There is quite a bit there, but to boil it down, all things in existence require something to have made them. The ultimate creation being the "Big Bang." For which, by the way, there is no direct physical evidence. It is therefore reasonable to assume that something must exist outside of material creation to have created it, and such thing, standing outside the physical realm would lack physical evidence of its existence, save the fact of existence itself.

In any case, the question is based on a superficial empiricism. Science itself does not operate on physical evidence of a thing.

"Dark matter," for example, has never been seen. There is no physical evidence of its existence. Rather, its existence is inferred from its effects on the things around it. (Indeed, even the recent "photo" of a Black Hole was not a photo of the hole, per se, rather it was the photo of the effect of things around it.)

Science operates not just in the realm of physical evidence, but in the postulates derived from observable effects. Thus, in essence, epistemologically we infer the existence of God from the order and structure around us.

The same is true even in the philosophical realm. There is no material evidence of love. Rather we infer its existence by its effects - what it causes one person to do for another, for example.

Indeed, science does not always get it right. Newton was thought to be the definitive word on physical existence. Then along comes Einstein who took the same physical and theoretical evidence and inferred a deeper and more consistent conclusion. Now, indeed, even Einstein is taking a hit as science moves to quantum physics - again based on no more than a deeper understanding of the same evidence from which Newton and Einstein developed there - dare we use the word - theories.

As someone once said, faith absent evidence is not faith but is fantasy. However, that evidence need no more be physical in the narrow sense than there is material evidence of gravity. There is no material evidence of gravity. Rather its existence is inferred by its effects.

The flaw in the question then is that it has uses a non-scientific criteria absent the larger theoretical structure from which science is derived. Look at the evidence of science in a narrow sense and you are left with a conundrum. The existence of order in the absence of anything to impose order.

The ultimate paradox then. Chaos spontaneously creating order. That, in strict scientific terms, is an oxymoron.

[AMS700CX4u2]

If you believe in evolution as a supporter of science. then you know that nothing comes from nothing. Something needs to initiate everything, no spontaneous generation. I think that the native American are on the right track by saying the the Great Spirit took part of himself and created the universe. Genesis says in the beginning the world was void and without form. Is that saying that no matter existed. If so a God composed of pure energy could take part of himself and create matter. If no matter then no need for time. It would be as thought the creation of matter necessitated the need for time. I mean that if electrons don't move the atom collapses. After that then evolution does the rest. Still Someone or something had to start it all. Our problem is that God had to explain it all to a guy who counts Jethro's sheep by throwing a rock in a preserved goat's stomach. We can only understand things that are explained in terms we understand. Once again "Who Knows"?

[Valso]

"nothing comes from nothing"

Then who created your god? 🤣
Don't bother answering, I already know what you'll say.

[RonStone45]

You can't create life from nonliving material. Hey how did matter and anti-matter come to exist out of nowhere?
God has always existed even before he created the concept of time, nothing came before him.

[AndrésC64]

I love it when people like you say stupid people like that. Guess what? Science doesn't say that something comes from nothing. Do you know who does make that claim? People like you, theists. You think that you're invisible friend "poofed" everything into existence ex nihilo. So you just ruled out your own theory and religion. Good job. 👏

[AndrésC64]

@RonStone45
"You can't create life from non-living material." Cool. You just ruled out your own religion.

"Things don't just come into existence out of nowhere." Cool. You again ruled out your own religion.

"God has always existed." Cool, then the universe can also have always existed.

[RonStone45]

@AndrésC64 That made no sense. It is a scientific fact that you cannot create life from nonliving material, so, it's impossible yet we exist. Life exists out of an impossibility, hence a miracle.

[RonStone45]

I just proved God existence right there, I didn't rule out my religion at all.

[RonStone45]

@AndrésC64 God didn't have a physical form, but particles do, what created the particles? Answer God did, God also created the universe.

[AMS700CX4u2]

@AndrésC64 Maybe you need to read it again. I have as many questions as you.

[AndrésC64]

@RonStone45 it's a scientific fact, really? I definitely need a citation for that one.

And guess what, even if by some miracle you could provide 100% certainty that life cannot come from non life, that still wouldn't prove the existence of your God, you know that, right? You need to provide evidence for the existence of your invisible friend. You can't.

[AndrésC64]

@RonStone45 *Citation Needed

[Valso]

@RonStone45 But your god is also "something", and you yourself said that "nothing comes from nothing", so your god must have come from something. And that something must have also come from something. So the question is quite valid - who/what created your god and who/what created the creator of your god? I know the answer to that bc it's quite obvious but it's obvious only to those of us who haven't been brainwashed by the church.

[RonStone45]

@Valso You're brainwashed by the word science and the globalists/communists that run the world, governments, media, institutions, press etc that want to destroy all religions.

[RonStone45]

@AndrésC64 It is a scientific fact, atheist scientists just don't want to admit it or say it and keep trying to figure out how it's possible to create life from non living material because they hate the idea that God create life by non scientific means.

God creating the universe is the most logical conclusion. Look around you, you think all of this was randomly created by nothing for no reason and that life is meaningless? Give me a break.

[AndrésC64]

LOL Saying that is a fact does not make it so. Do you have any evidence to support this claim? Of course you don't.

It's clowns like you that say that the universe came from nothing. That is not what scientists say. You clowns are the ones claiming that your invisible friend "poofed" everything into existence ex nhilo. Science does not say that.

Nobody cares what your book of mythology says. There are lots of ancient books with lots of silly stories. Yours is nothing special.

Even if, if, I worked a grant everything you claim and assert, that still wouldn't make your God anymore real. Maybe it was aliens. Maybe it was a different God.

Well, finally you said something that was almost correct, "Who knows?" And when that is the question oftentimes the only honest answer is "We don't know." But for people like you you insist that you do know because of some old book written by people who know less than my 8-year-old nephew.

[RonStone45]

@AndrésC64 Those people can define what a woman is unlike many atheists who claim to be wise but are fools. God created the universe, it is so obvious that he did, you for a reason do not want life to have meaning and hate and reject God for some reason.

I used science to prove that impossible things can happen without having a scientific explanation being behind it. Stubborn ignorant atheists don't want to admit we are right because they hate the thought that God truly exists and the things that follow from his existence. I would love to see the reaction on your face went you realize I was right in the afterlife.

[RonStone45]

when*

[Valso]

@AndrésC64 I learned and gave up on arguing with religious sheep long ago. You have better chances at convincing a brick wall that gods don't exist than convincing a religious sheep. Because the brick wall has never been brainwashed. Only brainwashing cures brainwashing, so it's pointless to even try to open their eyes. All we can do (our generation and the future ones, I mean) is to raise our children without religion, therefore teaching them not to hate anyone. Raised without religion they won't hate sex or anything else natural, they won't be racists and/or mysoginists (sorry, if I misspelled that) but most importantly - they won't be murderers:



That's really all we can do. Arguing with them is pointless. That's why I've blocked them both.

[Guy___]

Neither or both or something beyond or who the fuck knows anything, other than secret society shills founding both of them?

I believe we are ruled by trannies

https://www.youtube.com/embed/UlpKzF1jEz0https://www.youtube.com/embed/L-kp9geZ6Tw

[WhitneySnow]

Evolutionist but I’m still a Christian (yes Catholics count as Christian)

[Oigit]

Well I'm a "I'll find out when I'm dead person" type of person. I don't believe in one or the other and I do tend to avoid both champs because both can be down right tribe and cultish. Also I think the fighting between the camps is funny.

Look if god created everything. Who's to say that god didn't give us science and the higher brain functions to understand how god did it? To me it's kind of like telling Superman that he can't fly. Just because you say he can't does not mean he won't.

[AndrésC64]

Except that evolution is one of the most strongly supported theories in all science. It is supported by numerous independent fields of study. There isn't one piece of evidence that goes against evolution.

[OdliDPrincess]

I had the same thoughts

[Rosexøxø]

Very true claims. I’m much the same way

[Rosexøxø]

I once thought science and Christianity proved each other.

It wasn’t Bible Theologian vs Scientific Philosopher being right.

One was claim and the other was evidence

My current views are a bit modified, though.

[mstbooblover]

The answer whether to be so-called evolutionist or creationist depends largely on your level of understanding. For those able to open widely their eyes and mind to look around at animals, plants and geological phenomenons, the truth of everything being in constant evolution just becomes obvious. On the other hand, whatever or, let us admit the possibility, Whoever, triggered the Big Bang, may be considered in the line of Creation. Depending on your convictions, one could call this Nature and Evolution, or God... Mind there's no need to create a God to understand the notion of Creation ;0)

[Anonymous]

Both. The evidence for evolution of species is undeniable, but the evidence for it being the origin of species is lacking.

DNA itself is a conundrum. You have 4 base molecules that form a ladder strand on a double backbone of sugar phosphate. Specifically Guanine and sugar phosphate have never been found as abiotic formations, and guanine is 0% water soluble. So the idea that molecules that can only created by life forms, one of which is insoluble, randomly forming a structure that is capable of not only surviving, but replicating itself, in a primordial aqueous sludge, is beyond reason.

But the idea that life was created here intelligently, in such a way that it continues to adapt to environmental conditions in ways that allow it to thrive, makes sense.

[OfDeath]

That's actually incorrect. Science is progressing in that area and beginning to understand how self replicating molecules like DNA and RNA form naturally. We now know that specific minerals which we believe were present in the early earth catalyze the formation of sugars in the absence of water. Scientists have now created organic protocells from inorganic material. Your ship is sailing away.

[Opinion Owner]

@OfDeath I wouldn't mind reading about that. Got any good links?

[Lliam]

I believe in evolution; natural processes. People can ascribe supernatural powers to those processes if they want to. I won't say that they are wrong.

But those who take the Hebrew creation myth literally are too stupid to function. They are either completely uneducated or incapable of logical reason. All I can do is laugh at them.

[MCheetah]

I believe in science and evolution, not fairy tales written in an age of ignorance, which have been distorted over thousands of years, assuming they were ever even true to begin with. I'm not an atheist though; I'm agnostic, so I'm not saying the magic sky wizards, talking snakes, and zoo ships couldn't be real; just unlikely. Other people can believe in whatever they want though; I'm not stopping them.

[slatyb]

Creationism isn't a scientific theory, it's just "magic happened and I'm special." while explaining nothing. The objections to evolution raised by creationists, like "irreducible complexity" are easily shown to be false.

[Sabretooth]

Creation. Evolution makes no sense. The theory of evolution goes right back to creation... Unless your argument is a nameless monkey. We see evidence of creation every day... I suspect that such a process would be welcomed to farmers... But, it doesn't exist.

[Valso]

Evolutionist. Creationism is for the weak minded. Those who can't make decisions for themselves and who can't take a single step outside their homes without being guided by someone else.

[RonStone45]

Weak minded are the atheists who believe everything scientists say and are easily manipulated by the word ''science and ''expert'', they are void of critical thinking. They were the biggest sheep during the covid pandemic, scared of a little cold.

[Agagagagaga]

@RonStone45 Atheists are the biggest dickheads too. They always have this sneering, mocking way of putting down people who believe in God. It’s fucking disgusting behavior.

[RonStone45]

@Agagagagaga Agree 100%.

[MexicanNational23]

So you're telling me you rather listen to a scientist than God? I would rather be a weak mind being guided by the Best mind than a weak mind being guided by a weak mind.

[Valso]

@RonStone45 Because it's not weak minded for an adult person to have an imaginary friend, sure.

[purplepoppy]

I predict this question will degenerate into a left v argument.

[goaded]

Surely not.

[SaoirseS]

I predict @purplepoppy is right.

[Greedier]

Creationist.

I'm Evangelical Christian, so I was brought up to believe in God and according to what I've seen and has happened to my family over these years, I have no doubt about the Bible's validity.

[Becky316]

My dad and mom believed in God while they lived. I was raised to believe and based on what I have seen with my own eyes and lived, I believe that the Bible is right. I believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

[Sabretooth]

the bible make it clear that there is no trinity.

[FreyaRed]

I'm wondering if context of Prometheus franchise satisfies creationists. Or are bald blue skinned gods who love genetic experiments not really acceptable for those people?

[Chris_u006]

Historical accurate, at least somewhat.
It shows you are a thinker and a searcher of facts.
The light must rise again after Røkkr 2 have ended.
If you know you know who Till Lindemann portraits in Rammstein song Dicke Titten.

[FreyaRed]

'Die dicken Titten' of Skyrim think about research to create historical accuracy.

[MysticDevice]

I lean more towards evolution.
But for arguments sake lets say I'm wrong, I still wouldn't care. I don't subcribe to religion. I decide how I live. Not a mystical bearded paracausal dude in a 2000 year old book.

[bigslab]

Evolution

[abc3643]

God divinely inspired me to believe in evolution.

[AviatorTom]

I believe in evolution, though I don't discount that a supreme being may have been involved in getting things started.

[FunkyMonkee]

Yes. Evolution happened but ours had help from aliens, hence the supposed missing link. They created us as slaves to mine gold for them. Particularly monotonic gold.

[CateM]

I'm an atheist, so I believe in evolution, not creationism

[JustiReno]

evolution

https://www.youtube.com/embed/xuCn8ux2gbs

[Aerissa_Jade]

I am both, I believe god used evolution to create life and the world.

[Sabretooth]

Not accepting to the bible. He did everything himself and did everything separately from another

[Aerissa_Jade]

@Sabretooth How do you know, that he himself didn't use evolution for it? it says nothing about how exactly he did it.

[mstbooblover]

Very interesting summary :0)

[Sabretooth]

a whole article on this: www.jw.org/.../

[mstbooblover]

@Sabretooth Indeed interesting, but a bit biased because such texts can be interpreted on many different levels, the literal one being the least interesting and leading to obscurantism. The bible is a very interesting compilation of old texts, of different origins and inspiration, all still written by humans.

[Sabretooth]

@mstbooblover it shows that he created everything separately.

[mstbooblover]

@Sabretooth I'm not sure that text to be proof of anything, at best a reference to be studied with caution.

[RolandCuthbert]

I believe the origin of the universe is supernatural. What does that make me?

[Chazmatazz269]

Contrary to popular belief, they are not mutually exclusive.

[CloudMassacre]

I guess an evolutionist, but to me it’s like asking if I believe erosion exists and being called an Erosionist

[Twalli]

The best middle ground is God created evolution. So we evolved because God intended it to happen.

[FilmGuy93]

I never understood why these two things had to be at odds with each other.

[AsaKyo]

Evolution makes more sense to me, but I'm not really hard pressed on either, so I don't know really

[TroyDT2]

Unless we restrict "Creationist" to Young Earth Theists, one can be both.

[OfDeath]

Obviously an evolutionist. Even if you want to be a creationist, you still need evolution to explain how the creator got there.

[boobliker]

at the age of 68 i can say i am for one or the other. but may be some thing or someone put us here as a test and forgot about us,

[HaveNoName]

All I believe in is that for God, anything is possible.

[Cubus]

Evolutionist. Dinosaurs must have came from somewhere.

[Sabretooth]

That's where that theory falls flat

[Cubus]

@Sabretooth If Earth has 6000 years, like Creationism says then dinosaurs couldn't have existed. Yet we find their bones.

[Sabretooth]

Because God created them. The Bible references them.

[Cubus]

@Sabretooth Where exactly? It only talks about "big animals".

[Sabretooth]

There is no direct mention of them.

[Cubus]

@Sabretooth You just said that Bible references them and now you say it doesn;t.

[Sabretooth]

www.jw.org/.../

[Cubus]

@Sabretooth "There is no direct reference to dinosaurs in the Bible."

[Sabretooth]

That doesn't necessarily mean that the Bible denies them. Bible doesn't mention rhinos, either. The issue with evolution is that eventually, you come back to creation. Evolution says that we came from apes... Okay... What did monkeys evolve from?

[Sabretooth]

And I do hope that you can come at me with a little more than a nameless monkey like another did.

[Cubus]

@Sabretooth According to what we know, the monkey-like animal that we all evolved from was https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plesiadapis
and our closests living relatives are colugos, also known as flying lemurs https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colugo

[Sabretooth]

theoretically. I'm impressed that you found something. where did they come from?

[Sabretooth]

https://www.discovery.org/a/24041/ . are you familiar with Beast Wars: Transformers?

[Cubus]

@Sabretooth Transformers are science-fiction. They are not real.

[Sabretooth]

not the point. the point was that that show followed the theory of evolution... we saw monkeys learn and form words... they couldn't have been on Earth for more than 3 years. now, we look at our world today... no such breakthrough. just something that occurred to me.

[Cubus]

@Sabretooth "we saw monkeys learn and form words... they couldn't have been on Earth for more than 3 years."

So you basically say you don't exist?

[Cubus]

@Sabretooth And the site you sent me has a lot of logic holes and facts that are agains science.

For example nr. 9 "Neo-Darwinism Struggles to Explain the Biogeographical Distribution of many Species" and the case of American monkeys is mentioned.

Ever heard about "Oceanic dispersal"?

[Sabretooth]

the Transformers couldn't have been on Earth for more than 3 years. according to an experienced scientist named Prof. Dr. Md. Abdul Ahad who has 32 years of teaching 32 years teaching experience, 48 research article ,4 books wrote that Environment has no effect on evolution and evidences of Geographical distribution living organism (Biogeography) oppose the Darwin’s theory
www.researchgate.net/.../298722739_Environment_has_no_effect_on_evolution_and_evidences_of_Geographical_distribution_living_organism_Biogeography_oppose_the_Darwin's_theory let's also not forget that Darwin ended up abandoning the theory. you have many skeptics in the scientific community: www.researchgate.net/.../298722739_Environment_has_no_effect_on_evolution_and_evidences_of_Geographical_distribution_living_organism_Biogeography_oppose_the_Darwin's_theory

[Cubus]

@Sabretooth "wrote that Environment has no effect on evolution and evidences of Geographical distribution living organism"

Dude, then why do animals living in Antarctic have long fur and fat tissue?

And you still don;t answer my questions, you just bring up new false hypothesis

[Sabretooth]

maybe because they were created to live in such an environment. ''Darwin explained geographical distribution of animals and plants on the assumption that plants and animals were dispersed away from the places of their origin and subsequent become modified /evolved to match with the new and changing environment. In opposition, it is argued that when an organism cannot tolerate the new/changing environment, it simply migrates to a safest new place, if impossible to migrate, the animals simply die out. For example about 50,000 millions of land-birds migrate from the Europe to the Africa in each autumn to avoid the winter cold. ''... what explains the discrepancy?

[Cubus]

@Sabretooth On one hand you say that if animals cannot survive in one environment they migrate to another not to die and on the other hand you say that God created all of the animals. It's quite a contradiction.

[Sabretooth]

I never said that he created all things to live the same climate. Evolution would tell us that everything would evolve to live in any climate... That is clearly not the case.

[Cubus]

@Sabretooth Your logic might have been correct if not for the fact that we find fossils of extinct animals :)

[Sabretooth]

That proves nothing. What do you think would happen to a polar bear if you put in the desert? I think we both know the answer to that.

[Cubus]

@Sabretooth That's why species evolve to adjust to changing environment.

[Sabretooth]

The polar bear would die... As would those birds of they stayed.

[Cubus]

@Sabretooth Those that do not evolve die.

[Sabretooth]

So... What if we left a man underwater without a breather mask? Would we grow gills and fins or would we merely drown?

[Cubus]

@Sabretooth You talk about artificially lefting someone underwater, not natural.
Evolution takes time.

[Sabretooth]

We've been on the earth for a long time... We still have the same limitations and frailties as we did thousands of years ago.

[Cubus]

@Sabretooth Not really. Now almost all human tolerated lactose. A few thousand years ago almost no one tolerated it.

[Sabretooth]

Somewhat less than 40% of people in the world retain the ability to digest lactose after childhood. The numbers are often given as close to 0% of Native Americans, 5% of Asians, 25% of African and Caribbean peoples, 50% of Mediterranean peoples and 90% of northern Europeans.
www.mayoclinic.org/.../drc-20374238

[Cubus]

@Sabretooth Yep, but 12 000 years ago only 5% of ALL people tolerated lactose. Now it's 70%.

[msc545]

Evolutionist. Creationism is for children. Evolution is not incompatible with the notion of God.

[jongreat46]

I believe in evolution but not that we descend from apes, but maybe our ancestors acted like apes at one point.

[goebenbreslau]

i'm pro-science, which means i'm an evolutionist
all people should obey science, not god

[MountAverage]

Creationism is fiction. Why would I believe in fiction?

[Fromdusktilldawn]

Its foolish and just cringe to believe in creationism

[Agagagagaga]

Is it? How did life evolve on Earth in the first place? I mean how the fuck did this all start? How did the first life form come into being? I mean the Earth was just a barren husk of rock and minerals and water. But somehow somewhere along the way something spontaneously started taking a shit. Makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Both. I believe God made what evolved into man. I think man is still trying to put the pieces together.

[OddBeMe]

I’m a factualist. So I know evolution is happening. And that no creator has ever, ever been proven.

[888theGreat]

The question is are you a Christian worship Gold or are you not and worship Environment?

[AngryCarl]

I'm not really either, I just go with the science.

[QuietQuyInTheCorner]

Evolutionists.
Although Creation can be seen as more metaphorical than literal as creation is set in religion.

[Agape93]

Evolution, I believe in facts.

[BLP11520]

Evolution is an unproven theory. Which keeps evolving itself. Creationism works for me

[Anonymous]

Creationist. It’s the only one that makes the most sense.

[normalice]

Evolution seems kind of obvious in hindsight.

[BigschlongEnergy]

I’m both I create muscle And I evolve my muscles.

[Rosexøxø]

A little bit of both 👌

[Guy13]

Creationist easily proven with Physics.

[jshm2]

Only a Christian or atheist can be either.

[sunflower00]

Evolutionist

[Anonymous]

Evolution. But who kicked it all off...

[Hypermotard1916]

both of the above...

[RonStone45]

Creation all the way.

[Anonymous]

There are some people who believe in both!

[AndrésC64]

I have a brain, therefore I am an evolutionist.

[HippieVeganJewslim]

I believe that G-d created evolution.

[Wise4myage]

I am an Evolutionist.

[sunny02]

Creationist

[Summeroflove]

Christian.

[docster]

Creationism.