Creation Versus Evolution

[Theland]

Considering the fact that there are many non scientific people, myself included, getting blasted with scientific arguments for and against creation / evolution, my question is NOT which position is correct, but, "Don't you have some sympathy for us when we read this
http://www.talkorigins.org/
and then we read this
http://www.trueorigin.org/
?????????????????????????????????????

[Lonnie]

Hi Theland, i'll give you my views on all this. There's no doubt that the world is a marvel, everything in it is connected like a jigsaw, and it all needs each other, so a good explanation is to say that it was created, and well it might have been, I don't really know, and no-one else does for certain.

Creation, there's no reason why that and Science can't both be tools of God, and can't work together.

If God is so perfect, why did he create us?, (humans), apart from that, no matter what type of creature you are, you have to eat something that is either alive, or has been alive, so if there really is a God, he's got to be the biggest Sadist ever.

[mibn2cweus]

My sympathy is reserved for those who have gone to the trouble to question their own beliefs as well as the prevalent beliefs of those all around them and then after being willing to settle for nothing less then certainty through much effort and diligence finally having achieved some success are rebuked for not just accepting what they have been told to believe. These are the heroic among us! Good luck to you in your search for knowledge and may you find value and meaning in you life throughout this process.

[chakka35]

To be honest, I don't have much sympathy, having had a look at both sites. Talkorigins deals in fact and reason, Trueorigin in creationist superstition. The latter supplies five statements about evolution which it claims are true. Three of them are definitely untrue and the other two depend on definitions. I can explain if you like. Stick to rational things and you won't get confused.

[LazyGun]

Theland - You are to be commended in your efforts to better understand the scientific issues surrounding creation, and I do have some sympathy for those who have little scientific training trying to sort out which of the presented views contains more credibility.

Remember though, that the only people who really have issues with mainstream science when it comes to cosmology or evolutionary biology are those who believe that the creation account within the holy book(s) are believed to be the innerrant word of God, rather than descriptive stories, allegories, or metaphysical homilies.
Most mainstream faithheads of the major religions around the globe have no problem with conventional scientific wisdoms surrounding evolution or even abiogenesis , taking the view that God just "set the conditions".

Time and time again, creationist attempts to provide a scientific model for their belief in an interactive God who miraculously brought everything we know into existence have been skewered by mainstream science.... from the development of life, the development of humanity, the Great Flood, etc.

I really do not have a problem with people believing whatever they wish to believe... but I do take issue when they attempt to subvert or deny science in order to prove their claims, particularly when it comes to education in schools.

[Theland]

I also take issue with those who would deny proven scientific facts, or perverting scientific findings to support their own view.

The grey area is when scientific knowledge is then projected into other areas as yet unproven.

Abiogenesis falls into this category for me.

The same discomfort is felt by me when so called religious leaders, claim to base their faith on the Bible but over time, their religion, "evolves," into something that is not Bible based.

This is true of all of the cults, the Roman Catholic religion being the biggest.

[dawkins]

Theland

The folks over at talk origin believe the earth is only 6000 years old. If you agree with them that the world is only 6000 years old then you do not have to think too hard about it. If the earth is 6000 years old then evolution theory is wrong and all theories in cosmology are wrong. If you think the world is much older than 6000 years then you do not agree with the opinions of the folks down at true origin.

[LazyGun]

Theland,

I am not sure I quite understood your point about scientific knowledge and abiogenesis.

Are you saying that science should not formulate hypotheses and attempt to understand abiogenesis? If that is what you are saying, then I would have to fundamentally disagree with you.... It is certainly a valid area of scientific study, and researchers are perfectly at liberty to posit hypotheses in an attempt to explain it...

If, on the other hand, you are saying that scientists should not offer these hypotheses as factual certainties, then I would agree with you. It is another of the Gaps in knowledge that God can currently reside in, at the moment.