|
Actually, it's stupid for the word "creation" to have been taken over by those who believe that
creation was done according to one interpretation of the account in Genesis and it's also stupid
that the word "creation" is being used by opponents of those as if it covers all belief in a
creator.
Evolution is not the study of how life began. It is the study of how it evolved after it began.
There are theories regarding how life began but they are not the theory of evolution.
If a creator made humans and everything else in the manner that the 6x24hrs people believe, then
that creator made it so that it could all be traced back to billions of years.
If such is the case, then when it comes to studying the physical universe, it still wouldn't matter
if it had been created...the necessary information to be gathered would be that which appears to go
back billions of years.
Anyone who doesn't know by now that the lineage going back to Adam and Eve is way too short to cover
the existence of humans is either living in a cave or Tommy...the death, dumb and blind kid. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Technically, as Grenache pointed out, you can. Although I think it’s a fairly stupid thing to do.
Arguing against evolution with creationism makes about as much sense as arguing against General
Relativity using Greek mythology. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
I say let the science take us to the most reasonable conclusions. Put away all biases regarding
one's basically philosophical beliefs, whether they be scientism or creationism. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
1) You can argue with anything in any way. It doesn't have to be right, it doesn't have to be
reasonable, it may persuade a very small audience but not most people, but it's still fair game. 2)
Although I agree with the evolution side of this debate clearly there are many creationist believers
who sincerely think their argument trumps evolution. 3) If you believe God created nature's
processes then you can actually believe in the creation origin as well as the evolution that took
place since. You can believe in both so how is it possible to say one is irrelevant to arguing the
other? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Tell that to the groups who want creationism in science classes. They are both theories with
fundamental implications for how life on this planet came about. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
04 Nov 2009 00:03
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
