Evoltionist or Creationist, What's more likely?

Given the evidence of Life around us, how do you think it all started?

It can be both. First creation, but then evolution.

Ok, you told "started"...

Neutron, creation and evolution are two totally incompatible worldviews. No offense (really, I'm not trying to flame you), but if you do not recognize this, it merely shows ignorance on your part.

Tell me if I'm wrong.
I knew some physicists who believed that God created this world (say this was the Big Bang). And after that it evolved.
Others said God created Earth, plants and animals, but they could evolve from this point.

What's wrong with this point of view?

Yes, that's called theistic evolution, and I definitely do NOT support it. It started back when evolution was starting to grab hold, and basically, a bunch of religious people got together and said "You know, we can't have this evolution business stealing people away from us. So lets just say that creation and evolution are compatible!"...or something like that. The problem is, they aren't, and there is enough evidence (not for either argument, mind you, just for the fact that they are completely incompatible) to fill several volumes...or at least a dedicated topic.

Please define your terms for clarity.

Instantaneous creation is incompatible with evolution, but nothing says you cannot have evolution punctuated with creative acts.

Some say evolution is incompatible with God, but what they mean is that evolution is incompatible with their conception in God, which is usually based on what they are told is a literal reading of the Bible. If you actually try to assert everthing in the Bible, without checking against the world, then you will have problems. GPS flys in the face of various parts of the Bible which quote a bronze age cosmology.

Another problem is Human nature where people naturally emphasize the parts of the Bible that they agree with and mentally supress or rationalize away the parts of the Bible that they don't agree with. This is why few fundamentalists get into a religeous fervor over portapotties for migrant workers. The Bible has an answer to this problem, but you won't find many who know it.

Catholicism for years forbade laypersons to read the Bible because of these naturally occuring problems.

Where all analytical minds should be careful is that creationism is not an answer or a reason. Once you accept creation, all thought is over. It is only by denying creation that we can continue to reason though why things are the way they are.

If empirical study is to continue, creationism must be completely rejected.

Talk about flame. I wouldn't mind you disagreeing if you actually gave support of your opinions. Anyhow, I'll define my terms.
Here's the way I see it. Creation = in the beginning, god. Whereas evolution = in the beginning, man (or bang, whichever you prefer). I simply see it as a way of man mentally displacing god with himself, simply because he (man) doesn't want to have to obey him (god)....but that's just my opinion. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I personally hate that fact. However, just because I or anyone else wants to think something out of existence, doesn't mean its going to happen. Now as to taking the bible literally, I don't think all of it should be taken literally, but i think most all of it can and should. I'm not saying if I can't explain something, I'm going to say it should be taken figuratively; I'm just saying use common sense when interpreting it. Now as for me having to prove evolution and creation aren't compatible, why not instead you (meaning everyone) prove that they are compatible. I will give a few, though. First of all, all of the arguments against regular evolution apply to theistic evolution as well. Also, evolution's whole death cycle goes against the fact that the bible says there was no death before adam. (and I do believe that is to be taken literally) Also, theistic evolution necessitates various wild theories such as the gap theory and the day age theory, both of which are about as solid as a block of swiss cheese.

Oh and btw, I don't concider catholicism christianity. It may have started out that way, but somewhere along the line, they split off into an almost cult-like religion.

'Creation = in the beginning, god. Whereas evolution = in the beginning, man (or bang, whichever you prefer). I simply see it as a way of man mentally displacing god with himself, simply because he (man) doesn't want to have to obey him (god)....but that's just my opinion. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I personally hate that fact. However, just because I or anyone else wants to think something out of existence, doesn't mean its going to happen.'

The way i see it (and your way of seeing it is fine, but i disagree) is that creation= and evolution= are the same as you state, but I look at is as man wanting to be able to justify his/her existence by having a god with a master plan and the power to forgive and looking forward to a possible nice afterlife etc., and evolution saying you are only wishing for that here is an alternative (although it would be very nice to believe in a master plan and be forgiven, look forward to afterlife)
Evolution and Creation are looking at the same arguments and skewing their beliefs slightly to their instinct about what is true, and in each case sometimes against what they want to believe.

'Now as for me having to prove evolution and creation aren't compatible, why not instead you (meaning everyone) prove that they are compatible. '

The ideas of extreme evolution and creation are INcompatible, but a collage of selected ideas on either side could be merged into (what i think should be viewed as a separate belief) "theistic evolution." I would find this difficult to do except in the case of taking one or maybe two beliefs from the other side and incorporating them into yours because the opposing beliefs (explicitly backed up with evidence vs. explicitly based on faith) are so incompatible

hope nobody is mad...some people get that way about this

I agree with you on most everything except this. Both creation and evolution are both based on varying degrees of faith. Neither one of them can be proved. You may think that evolution has more "proof" than creation, but I would also argue that some, if not a majority of it is either exaggerated if not fabricated. I can give examples if needed.

Nothing in physics can really ever be proven. They will always just be theories. The difference is that there is actual proof for evolution, while there is no proof or rational reasoning behind creationism. If you believe faith is a justification for believing something is true, then no one can convince you otherwise. You are not rational then. Otherwise, if you believe only in what can be rationally reasoned out, then evolution is clearly the right answer. I am a rational person. Therefore it is obviously evolution to me. It is not just "different levels of faith". I KNOW for a fact that there is more evidence for evolution than anything else. If anything else comes up, i will trust that theory more. No faith involved. As i said, i am a rational person.
NeoSlovakia

neo, I believe we've already had this discussion before the forums were lost, but I'll be glad to do it again. Let's start with the fabricated evidence for evolution. Piltdown man is a good one. The guys who "found" him really took a pig's skull, boiled it down, treated it with acid, scuffed it up a little and called it a missing link. Speaking of missng links, how about the thousands of human skulls in the basement of the Smithsonian Institution? They are actually the skulls of murdered australian aboriginees. All in the name of evolution, of course. How about those pictures of different embryos at different stages of development? I'm pretty sure you can't get an education in evolution without seeing those pictures. Anyhow, those were proved to be purely fabricated. How about the supposed magnetic reversals in the mid-atlantic ridge that evolutions use to age the earth? Nope, you can go anywhere on the ocean floor and there are NO magnetic reversals. There are only areas of weak and strong magnetism. Pure bologna on someone's part. If evidence for evolution is so vastly abundant, why do people (if we should even call them that) have to go to such extremes to fabricate it? I don't think creationists have ever knowingly fabricated evidence (let alone killed for it) in favor of their beliefs. the1

Oh, and by the way, does anybody know why Hitler killed the Jews? I mean, why the Jews in particular? Why not someone else? The reason is because he believed they weren't as evolved as everyone else. He actually had a list he was going on, and the Jews were on the bottom. Next up the list were blacks, and then I think asian people, and so on until you got to blond hair, blue eyed Germans on top. Nice, isn't it? What about evolution's effects on society? It was in the 1960's when they put evolution into the textbooks. The 1960s also marked the golden age of the hippie. The exact year evolution hit the textbooks, divorce rates, single parents, violent crime, and abortion skyrocketed. Simultaneously, SAT scores plummeted. They finally had to renormalize the scores in the 1990s because everyone was scoring so poorly. Since then, things have gotten worse. Prime time television has become X-rated. (janet jackson @ the super bowl) Don't tell me all of this is just a coincidence. If you do, you're just fooling yourself. Not only is evolution wrong (IMO, and because of previously posted evidence), but it is destructive to society. .....Just look at Europe....(I know I'm gonna burn for that one.)

Hey you guys,

The devil asked me to come over here and spoil things for you all. What if there was no anthropomorphic God and there was no hereafter and all those swell times around the banquet table praising God and adoring the fine clothes he's wearing were never to be. What if all this is here for you to make something of it. What I mean is not waiting around for someone else to fix all the "stuff" up but we must do it ourselves?

What if the purpose of all this is so we can provide those "nice" things you are so willing to argue about for all those who came before and for all those to come after. What if the only "practical" way was to store the "essences" of all humanity for all of history inside a big "Quantum Computer" where everyhing can be provided (copyright and royalty free). The only way you could do this if you also managed "Time Travel" as well to collect all those who are on your big list.

Big ask - but if there was a budget out there to fund it I think we could rise to the occasion.

Just think if it is up to Physicists to provide the solution for all the worlds problems. Gosh that would give you loose cannons something to do for once except arguing about how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin.


Cheers

Very funny post, although I never said anything about a purpose. The only things I've said so far have to do with how we got here, not why we got here. Personally, I don't think it even matters why, just how. Oh, and which "nice" things are you referring to? I think you're referring to some of the more outlandish topics, but its hard to tell.