To be more to the point why can't creationism and evolutionism coexist? I am curious to what everyone's opinions are and what they believe would be a good compromise to the constant debates over this topic.

I am aware however that anything that may come of this would most likely not be accepted by religions.

I myself find it illogical to rule out the presence of a higher being based on religion. We are judging an infinte being beyond comprehension by the falibity of men. We have no facts to prove God exists but what facts do you have that God doesn't? Show me evidence of the impossibility of a God being somewhere in the vastness of existence. I do not speak of a theistic God but a God ingeneral. A metaphysical being of unimaginable power and limitless wisdom.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 16 2010, 1:27 pm by Kemuel.

Agreeing not to argue about it.

Oh they can (science and religion in general) most definitely be concomitant but only if people allow them to. Mainly that Christians need to understand that just because things and people evolved from something else doesn't belie their belief/relationship with God.

Science and religion... Two. Completely. Different. Things. One explains most of the phenomena of life, the other tells you how you should live life. Can't make this dichotomy any clearer than that.

Unfortunately from what I've seen the two concepts can coexist but people often provent this. Such as Christians and Atheists Christians don't want to hear anything that contradicts the bible while Atheists from the conversations I've had are basicly the same way they don't want to lisen to anything that contradicts what they believe to be truth. Many of the people I have spoken to feel that Creationism and Evolutionism directly contradict each other but I feel with tiny modifications they can work together.

Creationism is distinctly different from the Gap Theory, and shouldn't be confused with the two. If Creationism is slightly modified to allow for Evolution to stand validated, it will cease to be Creationism anymore by definition of Creationism.

Creationism and Evolutionism directly contradict each other. Genesis directly stands against evolution, and evolution stands directly against Genesis.

Sorry but my view of creationism isn't limited to christianity. Creationism is the general belief that a God created everything but my arguement isn't about one singular religion like christianity because they're not the only creationist religion. Why couldn't a God have created existence and made life able to evolve? It seems to me everyone stands on one side or the other. God created everything and theres no evolution or evolution occurs thus theres no God.

Creationism by definition is the belief that a supernatural being created life, earth, and the universe. What I mean is why couldn't a supernatural being have created life? So using genesis to describe creationism as a whole is biased because thats only one view of creationism.

To be honest neither need modified creationism just needs to be ungeneralized and looked at from a greater view than just using genesis as a crutch to debunk the existence of a God. Just because a religion is wrong doesn't make it impossible or illogical for there to be a higher being.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Sep 16 2010, 1:17 pm by Kemuel.

Sorry. I didn't realize that. The only time I've ever used the term Creationism is by referring to a Christian (young earth) Creationist.

Christian Creationism is mutually exclusive with Evolution. Christian Creationism states death (sin) came after man, and that Jesus died for sin. Evolutionists believe that death came before man, and that man was wrought from death. Evolution can be considered a religion of death, based around death and the weak dieing the strong or favored living on. I myself know that any god that would create man from evolution is both stupid and cruel. The inevitable conclusion, or so it seems, in the case that some sort of evolutionary theory were true would be to purge the weak from society, or at least sterilize them. I'm not a fan of eugenics. Furthermore, if there was death before man, then that completely nullifies the whole reason for Jesus dieing, as death came from sin. Death before man would mean sin before man, meaning that man never even had the free will to choose to be sinless or not.

This doesn't even make sense, or I don't understand it. Genesis to debunk god??

Let me explain a bit in every conversation I seem to have on this topic people use the fact that genesis is wrong to prove that its impossible for there to be a God. My argument is that it doesn't prove anything just that the men who created the religion are wrong. Just because life can adapt to its surrounding and develop new ways to survive doesn't make it impossible that a God could exist.

"the fact that genesis is wrong" Genesis isn't wrong, nor is it a fact that Genesis is wrong, nor is it PROVEABLE that Genesis is wrong.

Assumptions: Genesis is wrong; men and men alone wrote the bible and or created religion. Neither are supported by you in any way. If you're going to participate in these forums, then you need to adhere to the rules, particularly number 2 and 3.

The people who argue in these discussions typically only wish to prove their opponent wrong, and not necessarily discover any truths about the issue. Whatever side of the argument they fall on, both sides are afraid of being wrong, don't want their opponent to look good, or otherwise are so committed to their viewpoint that any discussion not exactly aligned with it is seen as a threat, at which point the requisite action is striking down the opposing discussion's points at all costs. This leads to making arguments that are not necessarily logically sound, but rather emotionally powerful. Often times the logic will be sacrificed to make a more convincing point, even if upon more careful observation the argument is false. On rare occasions, someone will argue either case because they genuinely believe it to be true, but I think it likely that anyone with a genuine interest in the topic will quickly come to the conclusion that a bit of ink on a piece of paper thousands of years old could hardly prove or disprove the existence of an all powerful being.

Basically, religion is a belief, a faith, that someone holds on to, and no matter what, they will believe in it and accept it in all it's glory. There is no discussion after that. Please learn that religion is a very personal, individual thing, and trying to pursuay anyone to believe what you believe is just as bad as cutting somebody's limbs off so they can recognize how good the handicapp benefits are (not reli.. joke... .. srsly... joke)

Since my post was deleted before, I shall elaborate on what I'm trying to accomplish here...
I read an argument article that argues against arguments about nothing(ironic?). It was very pursuasive, and I completely agree with the author.
The general idea is that the argument culture (in this case, the Serious Discussion thread) "urges us to approach the world-and the people in it-in an adversarial frame of mind", and he discussed against "the knee-jerk nature of approaching almost any issue, problem, or public person in an adversarial way.
In other words, we're arguing for the sake of argument.

It is a complete waste of time to argue for the sake of argument. And ALL of the FOUR current religious threads on Serious Discussion are lean on this knee-jerk reaction to argue against one another. Healthy discussion is fine, but shouldn't 1 thread be enough? Moreover, we should be discussing things that everyone can contribute to, rather than throwing arguments and defending ideas. Things like the Oil Spill at the Gulf of Mexico, or things like the upcoming elections in Iraq, and how the Taliban are taking advantage of it using threats.
It is These sorts of things that we should be discussing more of. Not religion. Because, as I've said before, religion is a belief. Arguing about it is just asking for more arguments.

On topic of Creationism vs. Evolution. There is zero evidence, other than from the bible, that creationism exists. The evidence for evolution has been brought out from people that work their lives investigating this topic and finding them. They are published in world-reknowned journals such as Nature. The Bible, on the other hand, has no solid evidence. Thinking that they can coexist is a theory, but a pretty hard to prove one. I wouldn't say it's stupid, because that's what you believe in.

Actually no. One can be religious and completely open to considering new ideas or information. Religion does not have to be dogmatic, and the view your proposed of religion is a narrow minded and shallow one.

There are plenty of people who believe that either their religious views have a sound logical basis, or that all the alternatives have logical inconsistencies and therefore their religious ones are the only possible accurate ones.
Given that, it is entirely possible to change peoples' beliefs through argument.
Furthermore, debate need not be for the purpose of changing minds. It is also an exchange in information, allowing the involved parties to understand that much more of their opposing viewpoints.
Exercised properly, debate urges us to communicate clearly, to think clearly, and to understand that with which we do not agree.
Those who do not do this are, to call up a meme, doing it wrong.
Just because some people cannot comprehend intelligent discourse comparing hypothesies and their reasoning, and just beacuse some people do not enjoy the practice of thinking, does not mean that no one does, nor that no one can benefit from it.
Throwing arguments and defending them is a valid form of discourse. It can be applied to all subjects you brought up. It, and whatever you may have had in mind as an alternative to it, can be applied to any other discussion, including religious. I do not see what your issue here is.
And there are people who disagree with you. This is (one of) the point(s) of debate - to determine which case (if either) is correct, by analyzing the bases of each.
For example, there are people who believe in irreducible complexity (organs in creatures which could not have evolved and therefore disprove evolution). Their reasoning may be sound. It may not. As I do not believe in irreducible complexity, it would befit me to explain how something which a creationist believes to be irreducibly complex may have evolved. Now, that creationist has learned something; else, they will have a counterargument, and from that counterargument, I will learn something. Either way, or ideally both, is good.

Well I for one thought vrael was accurate in his description, at least when it comes to me.

Well being my original post was erased I'd like to restate what I was trying to clarify. Alot of people in these conversations from what I've seen try to use the assumption that Genesis is completely wrong to prove that its impossible for there to be a God. Even if Genesis is wrong that doesn't mean its impossible for there to be a higher power IF it is wrong that just means the religion that follows it is wrong not God. Also this is not an assumption nor am I trying to pass it as fact this is a simple statement about how Genesis cannot be used to prove or disprove the possiblity of a higher being nor can it be used to generalize Creationism as a whole.

I would also like to say that this topic has lost its point I made this topic not to have a discussion about who is wrong or right. It seems to me that to many people generalize things to the point were ignorance is born. This ignorance kills any attempt at truly understanding religion and the people who follow it. The only way for us to move on with the true subject of this topic is if we stop using christianity as the single basis of creationism. Cecil you yourself thought that creationism was only a group within christianity.

This is what I'm talking about. Creationism is not limited to only christians.

Also cecil I never stated word for word that men and men alone created the bible. Unless you want to quote me and point out were I said exactly that man created the bible. There is a difference between man creating the bible and man writing the bible. Creating assumes that man completely made it up while writing doesn't necessarily imply man made it up.

Post has been edited 13 time(s), last time on Sep 20 2010, 3:15 pm by Kemuel.

Many of the most ancient religions have a story that describes how the world -- or even universe was created. Because of this, yeah, creationism is not only limited to christians.

Also my point isn't really to combine evolutionism and Creationism but to find a happy medium so that we can all coexist together without constantly fighting over "Does God exist? If he does exist why does he do nothing to stop all the suffering in the world?" Also "If he does exist why doesn't he show himself." To combine them would take alot of work gathering evidence that a God does exist and that he created everything and made evolution possible. If we could combine them that would be great but until then we need to find a way to live with it because no matter what you do its going to be brought up by someone somewhere, but I guess the best solution is to keep an open mind and not think in absolutes.

The problem is that there is no real evidence to support God's existence but there is no evidence that he doesn't exist, but isn't that the point? If God's existence could be proven wouldn't that contradict faith? In the bible doesn't it say that we were created to glorify God through faith?


Also I've been looking for facts to back up my "illiterate Farmer" claim and I was unable to find anything so I concede on this issue that I was wrong.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 20 2010, 3:00 pm by Kemuel.

Proof of the existence of deities is in the fact that so many people worship them. Religious belief in principle does not interfere with scientific research. It's only because people are so stupid that the two realms ever get mixed together.