Are you a creationist?

Do you believe in creationism?

  • Yes

  • No

  • I don't know what "creationism" is


Results are only viewable after voting.
Thats my thoughts on the matter. I'm not a big fan of viewing blind faith as a virtue, but thats a debate for another day.

It's true, blind faith, whether it's a good thing or bad thing is a matter of opinion. I can see the both sides but I don't think it makes people appear in a very good light when they say they refute scientific evidence because they have faith.
 
I think for some people who believe in creationism, there doesn't need to be evidence. They just believe.

Than it doesn't seem feasible to be able to consider creationism a "science".
For something to be called a science it needs to be observable and/or measurable.

It sounds like a viable belief, a philosophy, or a religion but not a science, in the standard definition of what makes something a science.
 
This has been an interesting conversation but i'm signing off for the night. It was nice to talk with everyone!
 

Than it doesn't seem feasible to be able to consider creationism a "science".
For something to be called a science it needs to be observable and/or measurable.
It sounds like a viable belief, a philosophy, or a religion but not a science, in the standard definition of what makes something a science.

You seem to have made up your mind. Before you ask whether creationism should be taught in public schools, (Which I'm guessing is where this thread is heading,) remember:

The battle between evolution and creationism — specifically, Christian creationism – in U.S. classrooms dates back to the 1925 Scopes trial, when a Tennessee court banned the teaching of evolution. Since then, state and federal courts have repeatedly rejected so-called creation science in public schools, calling it religion rather than science.

The latest courtroom defeat came in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover case, when the superficially religion-neutral theory of intelligent design was classified as religious creationism. The Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that teaching creationism violated the separation of church and state.

So, even if Jesus himself becomes President, creationism will never be taught in public schools.
 
No, I do not believe that some mythical being created the earth and everything on it.
 
You seem to have made up your mind. Before you ask whether creationism should be taught in public schools, (Which I'm guessing is where this thread is heading,) remember:

The battle between evolution and creationism — specifically, Christian creationism – in U.S. classrooms dates back to the 1925 Scopes trial, when a Tennessee court banned the teaching of evolution. Since then, state and federal courts have repeatedly rejected so-called creation science in public schools, calling it religion rather than science.

The latest courtroom defeat came in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover case, when the superficially religion-neutral theory of intelligent design was classified as religious creationism. The Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that teaching creationism violated the separation of church and state.

So, even if Jesus himself becomes President, creationism will never be taught in public schools.

Just to clear up any confusion, I am ABSOLUTELY NOT knocking the concept of creationism-I cannot emphasize that enough. I respect all of these beliefs & it is not my or anyone else's place to criticize anyone's beliefs.

I am merely talking about classifying creationism as a "science," according to the definition of what qualifies something as being "scientific." According to wikipedia, something classified as "scientific" has:

observable physical evidence of natural phenomena to collect data, and analyze this information to explain what and how things work. Such methods include experimentation that tries to simulate natural phenomena under controlled conditions and thought experiments.

I am just referring to a classification here-not validity of a belief.

I actually do think it is important to incorporate an entire class on World Religion or Philosophy in high schools, by the way. I feel it is very important to give students a taste for the several beliefs that different religions and culture believe, including creationism, as long as all of these faiths and information are presented in an objective manner-for the sake of education & knowledge.
 
/
Creationist here. I have no idea about time involved, dinosaurs and prefer to see what is called evolution as a form of adaptation. I don't think there is any proof of one species turning into something different. I choose to have faith in the Bible which I believe is God-directed. Others of you prefer to believe in science which is your right. I hope this thread continues in a polite fashion with a peaceful exchange of opinions.
I have a strong christian faith and I believe the Bible, but I have a question.

In Noah's Arc 2 of each animal was brought. 1 pair of bears, 1 pair of cats, 1 pair of pigs, etc...Think of all the species of bears or dogs out there. Only 2 were brought on the arc. They would have evolved (adapt) to where they were.

I personally believe that God made a basic blue print for the animals and they changed with time and location. We humans have.

I dot think we came from fish or anything like that. That is a bit extreme for me personally.
 
Creationism is a belief. I do not argue that. If you are looking for logic, you won't find it in creationism. I am not looking to debate. I am just stating my beliefs. Evolution for me, even with its evidence, is not an option. It is an attempt to explain the existence of life without God. Sounds good and logical, but significant observable evidence also exists against it. The acceptance or rejection on a scientific proposition like evolution should be based solely on observable facts and data. Evolution is still just an idea and not a fact based on observable data. Yes, it has some evidence for it, but it also has evidence against it. To accept evolution, to me, is to accept an idea based on personal belief rather than mere data.
 
I dont think that creationism is something that should be taught is class rooms. I think it's the parent's job to take the kids to church or youth group or something if they want that what they want. And if they REALLY want that there are Christian schools out there.

I dont care if evolution is taught in school, just as long as they teach it as a scientific theory in science class. NOT as fact.
 
You seem to have made up your mind. Before you ask whether creationism should be taught in public schools, (Which I'm guessing is where this thread is heading,) remember:

The battle between evolution and creationism — specifically, Christian creationism – in U.S. classrooms dates back to the 1925 Scopes trial, when a Tennessee court banned the teaching of evolution. Since then, state and federal courts have repeatedly rejected so-called creation science in public schools, calling it religion rather than science.

The latest courtroom defeat came in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover case, when the superficially religion-neutral theory of intelligent design was classified as religious creationism. The Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that teaching creationism violated the separation of church and state.

So, even if Jesus himself becomes President, creationism will never be taught in public schools.

Yes, and they still are fightin' over it:

A federal judge says the University of California can deny course credit to applicants from Christian high schools whose textbooks declare the Bible infallible and reject evolution.

Rejecting claims of religious discrimination and stifling of free expression, U.S. District Judge James Otero of Los Angeles said UC's review committees cited legitimate reasons for rejecting the texts - not because they contained religious viewpoints, but because they omitted important topics in science and history and failed to teach critical thinking.

Otero's ruling Friday, which focused on specific courses and texts, followed his decision in March that found no anti-religious bias in the university's system of reviewing high school classes. Now that the lawsuit has been dismissed, a group of Christian schools has appealed Otero's rulings to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

"It appears the UC is attempting to secularize private religious schools," attorney Jennifer Monk of Advocates for Faith and Freedom said Tuesday. Her clients include the Association of Christian Schools International, two Southern California high schools and several students.

Charles Robinson, the university's vice president for legal affairs, said the ruling "confirms that UC may apply the same admissions standards to all students and to all high schools without regard to their religious affiliations." What the plaintiffs seek, he said, is a "religious exemption from regular admissions standards."

August 13, 2008
 
Creationism is a belief. I do not argue that. If you are looking for logic, you won't find it in creationism. I am not looking to debate. I am just stating my beliefs. Evolution for me, even with its evidence, is not an option. It is an attempt to explain the existence of life without God. Sounds good and logical, but significant observable evidence also exists against it. The acceptance or rejection on a scientific proposition like evolution should be based solely on observable facts and data. Evolution is still just an idea and not a fact based on observable data. Yes, it has some evidence for it, but it also has evidence against it. To accept evolution, to me, is to accept an idea based on personal belief rather than mere data.
THANK YOU!!! Many people out there dont think like you. It nearly impossible to debate with them because they refuse to accept that there is any evidence against evolution and at the end of the day it's still a theory. You get that it takes faith to believe in the data. For that I truly respect your opinion.
 
I dont think that creationism is something that should be taught is class rooms. I think it's the parent's job to take the kids to church or youth group or something if they want that what they want. And if they REALLY want that there are Christian schools out there.

I dont care if evolution is taught in school, just as long as they teach it as a scientific theory in science class. NOT as fact.

I think it's important to expose kids to different people's beliefs while they are in school, a facilitated & guided setting. For the sole purpose of preventing ignorance towards other peoples beliefs when they are exposed to them on a not so supervised setting. Unfortunately parents don't always educate their kids on other peoples beliefs. But exactly like you said, these beliefs (and religion in general) should be taught in an objective and non-opinionated manner in school-just stating the facts.
 
Creationism is a belief. I do not argue that. If you are looking for logic, you won't find it in creationism. I am not looking to debate. I am just stating my beliefs. Evolution for me, even with its evidence, is not an option. It is an attempt to explain the existence of life without God. Sounds good and logical, but significant observable evidence also exists against it. The acceptance or rejection on a scientific proposition like evolution should be based solely on observable facts and data. Evolution is still just an idea and not a fact based on observable data. Yes, it has some evidence for it, but it also has evidence against it. To accept evolution, to me, is to accept an idea based on personal belief rather than mere data.

I am really interested in reading about the observable evidence against evolution. Could you point me to a link where I could read up on this?

(again, I am not being smarmy or anything, I am just wanting to educate myself on different points of view)
 
I think it's important to expose kids to different people's beliefs while they are in school, a facilitated & guided setting. For the sole purpose of preventing ignorance towards other peoples beliefs when they are exposed to them on a not so supervised setting. Unfortunately parents don't always educate their kids on other peoples beliefs. But exactly like you said, these beliefs (and religion in general) should be taught in an objective and non-opinionated manner in school-just stating the facts.
Yeah, it just make me upset when people try to take out the theory part and try to make it fact. Neither can truly be proven. The Bible has been truthful about the past and there is evidence in favor of evolution. Hovever, not everything in the Bible can be proven, let alone explained and there is also alot evidence against evolution.

There re just some things we will never know. I think of it like our world is far too wonderful and beautiful to just be made of chance. It must have been planned. Other's find that silly and will go with evolution.
 
I'd like to read some of this proof against evolution too. I realize that there are holes in the theory (or a lack of proof) but I'm not aware of anything that proves evolution is a fallacy.
 
THANK YOU!!! Many people out there dont think like you. It nearly impossible to debate with them because they refuse to accept that there is any evidence against evolution and at the end of the day it's still a theory. You get that it takes faith to believe in the data. For that I truly respect your opinion.

Then can you please give us this evidence? I've been discussing evolution for a while now on another website, and while many creationists say they have evidence against evolution, none have shown any of it. Please, if you have it, share it with us!

And refer back to my explanation on what a scientific theory really is. Evolution is a scientific theory. In science, creationism isn't even a hypothesis.
 
Though not all are perfect here are some.

Sexual Reproduction
Many creatures reproduce asexually. Why would animals abandon simpler asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction? Sexual reproduction is a very complex process that is only useful if fully in place. For sexual reproduction to have evolved complimentary male and female sex organs, sperm and eggs, and all the associated machinery in tandem defies the imagination. Evolution is suppose to better species; sexual reproduction makes it harder to reproduce, how is that better for a species?

Human Language
Language is one of the main things that separates man from the animals. No animal is capable of achieving anything like human speech, and all attempts to teach chimpanzees to talk have failed. Evolutionists have no explanation for the origin of human language. However, the Bible does. It says that the first man, Adam, was created able to speak. The Bible also explains why we have different human languages, as God had to "confuse" the common language being used in Babel after the flood, in order to force people to spread out around the world as He wanted. This was only a "surface" confusion though, as all languages express the same underlying basic ideas and concepts, enabling other languages to be learned and understood.

Human Consciousness
A person is a unity of body + mind/soul, the mind/soul being the immaterial part of you that is the real inner you. Chemicals alone cannot explain self-awareness, creativity, reasoning, emotions of love and hate, sensations of pleasure and pain, possessing and remembering experiences, and free will. Reason itself cannot be relied upon if it is based only on blind neurological events.

Abrupt Appearance in the Fossil Record
The oldest fossils for any creature are already fully-formed and don’t change much over time (“stasis”). The “Cambrian Explosion” in the “primordial strata” documents the geologically rapid appearance of most major groups of complex animals. There is no evidence of evolution from simpler forms. Birds are said to have evolved from reptiles but no fossil has ever been found having a “half-scale/half-wing”. A reptile breathes using an “in and out” lung (like humans have), but a bird has a “flow-through” lung suitable for moving through the air. Can you even imagine how such a transition of the lung could have taken place? Abrupt appearance and stasis are consistent with the biblical concept of creation “according to its kind”, and a world-wide flood that scoured the earth down to its basement rocks, depositing the “geologic column” and giving the appearance of a “Cambrian Explosion”. Smarter, more mobile creatures would escape the flood waters longer, becoming buried in higher-level strata, leading to a burial order progressing from “simpler” forms to more complex/higher-level forms, which people now wrongly interpret as an evolutionary progression.

Fine-tuning of Earth for Life
Dozens of parameters are “just right” for life to exist on this planet. For example, if the Earth were just a little closer to the Sun it would be too hot and the ocean’s water would boil away, much further and it would be covered continually in ice. Earth’s circular orbit (to maintain a roughly constant temperature year-round), its rotation speed (to provide days and nights not too long or short), its tilt (to provide seasons), and the presence of the moon (to provide tides to cleanse the oceans) are just some of many other examples.

The presence of large amounts of water, with its amazing special properties, is also required. Water is a rare compound in that it is lighter in a solid state than in a liquid state. This allows ponds to freeze with the ice on the surface allowing the life beneath to survive. Otherwise bodies of water would freeze from the bottom up and become solid ice. Water is also the most universal “solvent” known, allowing for dissolving/mixing with the many different chemicals of life. In fact, our bodies are 75-85% comprised of water.

Second Law of Thermodynamics
The Second Law of Thermodynamics refers to the universal tendency for things, on their own, to “mix” with their surrounding environment over time, becoming less ordered and eventually reaching a steady-state. A glass of hot water becomes room temperature, buildings decay into rubble, and the stars will eventually burn out leading to the “heat death” of the universe. However, the evolutionary scenario proposes that over time things, on their own, became more ordered and structured. Somehow the energy of a “Big Bang” structured itself into stars, galaxies, planets, and living things, contrary to the Second Law. It is sometimes said that the energy of the Sun was enough to overcome this tendency and allow for the formation of life on earth. However, application of energy alone is not enough to overcome this tendency; the energy must be channeled by a machine. A human must repair a building to keep it from decaying. Likewise, it is the machinery of photosynthesis which harnesses the energy of the Sun, allowing life to exist, and photosynthesis is itself a complex chemical process. The maturing of an acorn into a tree, or a zygote (the first cell resulting from fertilization) into a mature human being does not violate the Second Law as these processes are guided by the information already present in the acorn or zygote.

Formation of Life
Dead chemicals cannot become alive on their own. The cell is a miniature factory with many active processes, not a simple blob of “protoplasm” as believed in Darwin’s day. Lightening striking a mud puddle or some “warm little pond” will never produce life. This is another view of the core issue of information as the simplest living cell requires a vast amount of information to be present. The “Law of Biogenesis” states that life comes only from prior life. Spontaneous generation has long been shown to be impossible (by Louis Pasteur in 1859). Numerous efforts to bring life from non-life (including the famous Miller-Urey experiment) have not succeeded. The probability of life forming from non-life has been likened to the probability of a tornado going through a junkyard and spontaneously assembling a working 747 airplane. The idea that life on earth may have been seeded from outer space just moves the problem elsewhere.

Design of Living Things
Design is apparent in the living world. Even Richard Dawkins in his anti-creation book The Blind Watchmaker admits “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” The amazing defense mechanism of the Bombardier Beetle is a classic example of design in nature, seemingly impossible to explain as the result of accumulating small beneficial changes over time, because if the mechanism doesn’t work perfectly, “boom” – no more beetle! This is also another view of the core issue of information, as the design of living things is the result of processing the information in the DNA (following the blueprint) to produce a working organism.



This evidence is clearly not perfect. Most has to do with everything being too perfect for it to be chance (imo it is), the lack of a TRUE missing links, and humans being far more complex than any other creature. Look what we are doing now, we are talking on the internet that a human made that's amazing when you think about all the other creatures on earth.

As for the missing links, for eveyone we find there are still hundreds more to find. Where is the ape-human link? Where is the reptile-bird link? Why are there so few, if any at all? Where are they now? No one can answer these questions.
 














Save Up to 30% on Rooms at Walt Disney World!

Save up to 30% on rooms at select Disney Resorts Collection hotels when you stay 5 consecutive nights or longer in late summer and early fall. Plus, enjoy other savings for shorter stays.This offer is valid for stays most nights from August 1 to October 11, 2025.
CLICK HERE







New Posts







DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top