Evolution vs Creationism vs More V1.0

[RioBravoReptiles]

It's not necessary to be an atheist to discount creationism. Many educated people of faith see that God's plan is much more complex than instantaneous staus-quo. Creationism is basicly Bubba's view of how the universe came about and that Bubba hasn't been out of the county he was born in.
.
Creationists have a primary agenda which is basicaly accepting fatalism and that only they are chosen by the supreme being to ascend and the rest of us will burn. Many creationists are also behind movements to deny climate-change.. not because they totally deny it, rather they think it doesn't matter since the catastrophe of global warming is only part of armageddon which will lead to the chosen believers (them) being taken whole from the earth while the non-believers (evolutionists) burn.. it does go on!
.
And maybe you think the Islamist Jihadists are really dangerous?
.
My (informed) opinions, of course.
.
There is much more to be said on this subject but that's it for now.

[Stargazer]

It is my understanding that a debate requires each side to cite scientific/empirical evidence for its claim. It is my understanding that the creationist view is based on faith. Am I correct? One must believe and take for absolute truth what is written in the Bible. If this is the case, then this debate can never ever be resolved. Christian philosophy, by its very nature, creates a duality where one side is right and the other is wrong. Christians first accept that Creationism is true because it has been written in the Bible. Then they look for evidence (changing weather patterns, wars, etc.) to support what they already believe. This is very different from a scientific inquiry that may have a few postulates but changes direction to accommodate new evidence. They are not parallel methods of inquiry. Therefore, I do not see the merit of trying to debate this topic! I think a more worthy topic of discussion is how powerful our thoughts and beliefs are, whether they be religious or scientific. There is much scientific evidence to confirm this.

[RioBravoReptiles]

Creation is in the first book of the Old Testament which is not a (solely) Christian artifact.. Christianity is about the New Testament. Though many creationists are demagogic Christians.
.
Be safe..

[Stargazer]

I was unaware of that. But the argument remains the same that one theory (evolution) starts with the end result and tries to postulate a theory. The other theory (Creationism) starts at the beginning with a story and seeks evidence to justify the story. How can the two theories even be compared?

If scientists were able to piece together the creationist story from their findings who have never heard the myth of creation, that would be scientifically significant. But how can you argue something that is faith-based?

[RioBravoReptiles]

Anyone not familiar with the Bible and it's history can't have much to add in a debate over Creationism vs Evolution... neither do Creationists not versed in evolutionary sciences.
.
That's just what I think..
.
Be safe.

[Stargazer]

Originally Posted by RioBravoReptiles

Anyone not familiar with the Bible and it's history can't have much to add in a debate over Creationism vs Evolution... neither do Creationists not versed in evolutionary sciences.
.
That's just what I think..
.
Be safe.

Why do you think that? Why cannot someone discuss methods of study as without being able to cite religious texts? And if that's the case, should one be also well versed in all creation myths and all scientific studies on evolution? I don't think any of us fit that category.

[RioBravoReptiles]

Hi again!
.
You can discuss anything and you are.
.
What I wrote was that I believed without a foundation in both disciplines someone wouldn't wouldn't have a lot to add to the debate..
.
I would have written the same if I had seen someone join in and make a statement betraying a lack of understanding of the fundamentals of geology or paleontolgy.
.
As I said earlier.. just my opinions.