Creationist or evolutionist ? HELP!

Creationist or evolutionist?

  • Creationist

    Votes: 24 66.7%
  • Evolutionist

    Votes: 4 11.1%
  • Can't decide or a bit of both

    Votes: 8 22.2%

  • Total voters
    36
  • Poll closed .

Mamita

Back to basics
Hey ladies,

It's me again, again with the preacher's son. Man is he making me think or what? lol

Anyway, i have 2 questions for you: About the begining of the world

Are you a creationist (Adam and Eve) or an evolutionist (God created everything there is, and had planned for that water germ to become an ape that will become a homo-sapiens that will become a man (or something like that))?

I'm not asking for your reasons, you are allowed to believe in anything you want. But what I'm asking also is : if you are one, can you have a relationship with someone that believes the other one? It sounds like quite the difference in beliefs! If it's your case, tell me if it ever comes up lol

Please tell me what you think. Thank you

I'm going to send the first question to the off topic forum, and there ask for why you believe in one or the other.
 
Mamita said:
Hey ladies,

It's me again, again with the preacher's son. Man is he making me think or what? lol

Anyway, i have 2 questions for you: About the begining of the world

Are you a creationist (Adam and Eve) or an evolutionist (God created everything there is, and had planned for that water germ to become an ape that will become a homo-sapiens that will become a man (or something like that))?

I'm not asking for your reasons, you are allowed to believe in anything you want. But what I'm asking also is : if you are one, can you have a relationship with someone that believes the other one? It sounds like quite the difference in beliefs! If it's your case, tell me if it ever comes up lol

Please tell me what you think. Thank you

I'm going to send the first question to the off topic forum, and there ask for why you believe in one or the other.


I am a creationist believer...I believe that because it is in the Bible, and I believe the Bible to be true. I didn't know that evolutionist gave God credit for anything in Creation, I thought that they believed in the "Big Bank Theory"...or maybe that is something different...I could be getting two theories mixed up...but needless to say, I believe in Creation, and the Bible doesn't seem to mention that he created "us" as animals, so I don't believe that we evolved from animals (apes or whatever)
Regarding in if I could date someone that believes differently...that is a difficult question, but I guess I would be concerned with ultimately the other person's position of the Bible and if they believe that it is true.
Hope my answer makes since.
 
Thank you fivefoursweetie You make total sense.

Just wanted to add that naah you didn't mix them up, the big bang comes from the evolutionist theory, but as far as science can go, you can still believe God was there to make it all happen that way and not another. Not every scientist is a non believer, you have a lot of christian scientists.

Just wanted to clear that up.

Thank you 54sweetie
 
fivefoursweetie said:
I am a creationist believer...I believe that because it is in the Bible, and I believe the Bible to be true. I didn't know that evolutionist gave God credit for anything in Creation, I thought that they believed in the "Big Bank Theory"...or maybe that is something different...I could be getting two theories mixed up...but needless to say, I believe in Creation, and the Bible doesn't seem to mention that he created "us" as animals, so I don't believe that we evolved from animals (apes or whatever)
Regarding in if I could date someone that believes differently...that is a difficult question, but I guess I would be concerned with ultimately the other person's position of the Bible and if they believe that it is true.
Hope my answer makes since.

I agree. Now I have come across people that are partially both that believe in the creation with Adam and Eve, but also believe some form of "evolution" took place. B/c we don't know the answer of how God made all of these wonderous creations, I think it a bit presumptious to assume to completely agree or disagree with how He did it, outside of what is given in his Word which we as believers know as true.

As far as a rlp with someone else, it all goes back to the Word, and if they believe that is true.
 
Hi Ladies!

I posted a response in the "Off Topic" forum on this issue but I will repeat it in abbreviated form here.

I believe that God created the heavens and the earth in six literal days. I have been involved in a study on this topic recently and so I am really "fired up" about this subject. Someone said earlier that she believes in creation because it's in the Word. That is my belief too. Either the Bible is true from Genesis to Revelation or it isn't.

Dinosaurs were real, Noah's flood was real and modern science and modern scientific methods support the biblical account of these events. If any of you are interested in more information on this I would be happy to recommend some resources to you.

I believe if you and your friend have different beliefs on this topic, you may want to be very cautious iabout getting very serious with him. It goes back to my earlier statement about the truth of the Word. If he takes out creation because he doesn't believe it, what else will/does he take out? What will you teach your children about this? Believing that God is the Almighty Creator is the beginning of faith....

Anyway, I could go on and on about this.....
 
I was corrected today on the other forum...it is true that the word dinosaur does not appear in scripture but scripture does support their existance. Sorry for the mis-statement....
 
I believe it is very obvious that we, this planet and everything in the universe were created. There is too much beauty and order in the universe to be just an accident as some scientists believe. Our own bodies are magnificent works of art and science has not been able to create a human from scratch.

In relationships, I strongly believe couples must be like-hearted spiritually, otherwise they will not last.
 
I absolutely and totally belive that God created the universe. My view of the Creation in Genesis is who are we to compare a "God" day to a human day? One day to him could certainly be thousands of days to us. My point is that belief in one viewpoint does not necessarily signal that you can not believe in the other.

I believe in the Bible. I don't believe that it is a biology/geology/chemistry textbook. It's purpose is not to explain in specific detail "how" God created the earth and all of the intricate details within it. It is a guide to how we are to live and be and how we obtain our knowledge of who God is and the history of his people.

I believe there is a scientific way of explaining how God created the earth, but I understand that that science is also a part of God's creation.
 
Last edited:
I am a Believer in Creation as stated in the bible. Some things that solidified my belief early on though the church I attended did not give clear answers to questions asked were things like, when I visited the Museum of natural history in new york on a school trip. I asked the attendant where did they get the evidence of the drawings depicting man evolving from apes and they said, well it was just a theory and there is no evidence that shows apes becoming man. Thats when I decided to stick to the bible even though it was not clear.
Later I began to discover that there was more evidence that we were formed by God's hands than not. DNA pretty much has ruled out evolution.
The fact that monkeys lived in the same environment and have yet to change. Just alot of things that were so obvious tell me what the bible says is correct.
If I am not mistaken there is no scientific evidence physical or other wise that shows that the human body had any other form than it does now or is the result of evolution. The evolution theory was thought of in order to come up with another explaination for how we got here besides from God. Its not that any evidence popped up to challenge creation.
Genesis does not however say what many people who are creationist say. Such as the earth being created in six days as we understand a day. We count a day as twenty four hours. That is based on the earth spinning on its axis to make a rotation from the quote sun up to sun down. In verse three God created light, but that was not the Sun for it is not until the fourth "day", in verse 16, that God actually make what sounds like our sun. So, if the earth was indeed turning at that time, a twenty four hour day would not have begun until the sun was in place. Twenty four hour day would not begin until the spin of the earth began.
Chapter two gives this impression in verse 2:4 These "generations " of the heavens and earth when they were created, in the day the Lord God made the heavens and the earth. Still sounds like the day has yet to correspond with our twenty four hour day. Verse 5 specifically states that the plants and things were made before a seed was in the ground. Animals were made separately. There is an article on the following web site. www.aish.com/societywork/sciencenature/ Click on the article the age of the universe. Its good reading but you can scroll down to the paragraph "What is a day" and Einsteins's Law of relativity. This is from people who did not spend their energy trying to prove the word of God false but trying to understand Gods magnificant work. Right or wrong I think it shows that we have not even begun to open our minds to really know his work.
DNA, gives the evidence that we were made complete and whole and fully functioning. Not gradual coming from another form by chance.
So the Bible version, for me gives a clear method used to create. That coincides better with the physical evidence than the evolution theory. WE are here and it is beyond mans ability to figure it out. Sounds to me like believing creation makes more sense than that it was by chance things are the way they are. Also to believe that some simple sheep herder sat down one day and could put together such a intricate unbelievable story that, is still defying modern scientists ability to discover any flaws is really unbelievable. Scientist are constantly trying to prove the bible wrong but have not been able to do so.
There is information in the Bible that was proven true several thouands years after written. Written before man's ability to discover it for himself. The bible is simply ahead of mans discoveries.
I love the Bible.:)
 
I believe in a literal 6 day creation and God resting on the seventh day according to Scripture. I could date someone who thought opposite, but by the end of the day, I would convince him that macro evolution is impossible and did not happen. :grin:
 
If the creation account in Genesis is not true, how can we believe anything else in the Bible? The Genesis account of man's fall is the reason we needed a Savior. Man's rebellion caused sin and death to come into the world and now the whole creation suffers because of that sin. Evolution is not supported in scripture and in fact teaches that sin and death came before man was created. Many try to insert evolutionary periods between the days of creation, but the words translated as "day" in those verses means an ordinary 24 hour day, not eons. The same word is translated as an ordinary day in other parts of scripture as well.
 
I would respectfully ask those who don't translate it as a literal ordinary 24hr period what the basis of their non-literal translation would be.
 
My basis for the non-literal translation is that in genesis, there is so many contradictions in it that if you try to take everything at its literal value, you would have to disregard the book based on its contradictions alone. Therefore, my conclusion is that much of what is said in the book is symbolic.

Here are a few examples of contradictions:
During the 6th day of creation, in Chapter 1
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.


So, it would seem (at least to me) that man and woman were created on the 6th day.


But, then later, after everything was created, after the 7th day when God had rested, and "there was not a man to till the ground" we have in Chapter 2:

2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Right there within just a few verses in the same boook, we have different accounts of the creation of man. I have to conclude that either a very confused person was writing Genesis, or that it is a symbolic account not to be taken literally word for word.
 
Last edited:
Genesis 2 is not a different creation account but a more detailed version of the account from chapter 1. Chapter 2 starts out (vss. 1-3) with a summary of how God ended His creative work. Verse 4 starts a new thought. The writer is describing how plants were watered at that time, and is making a distinction between plants in general (Genesis 1:12) and plants that required cultivation ("a man to till it"). He then begins with the details of the creation account from chapter 1. We are told in that chapter only that God created man; in this chapter we find out He created him out of the dust of the earth, etc. We also find out more details about day 6 of creation.

So I don't believe the writer is confused; merely providing more details for us to marvel at God's creative power!
 
Well, in the creation part of genesis, things are presented in a linear fashion. Day 1, day 2, etc... Day 6 (creation of men and women), day 7. God rest. Plants grow, etc... There is no man to till the land. God creates man out of dust and breath life into him. Later on, he creates woman out of man. This is clearly to me, linear fashion. Nowhere does it says, now, let's go back to day 6 and that is the details of how God created man.

Just goes to show, 2 people can read the same text and come to different conclusions. Whatever works for you.
 
Last edited:
Another example, in Chapter 1, on the 4th day, God created the animals before he created man and woman whose creation was on day 6.

1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


Yet, in Chapter 2, God creates the animals after he creates man (Adam):


2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast ofthe field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Some people will say, oh, these animals were there before, but if so, why would God form them out of the ground again?

Like I said, whatever works for you. If you want to take every word in Genesis literally, and it works for you, that's great. But, if others choose to see things more symbolically and not so literally, that does not mean they're bad Christians or heathens.
 
Last edited:
The poll results are truly frightening.

Early Christians believed the bible said the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth. Do people still believe that too? How can one take certain parts of the bible literally but not the rest? :confused:
 
LovelyZ said:
I absolutely and totally belive that God created the universe. My view of the Creation in Genesis is who are we to compare a "God" day to a human day? One day to him could certainly be thousands of days to us. My point is that belief in one viewpoint does not necessarily signal that you can not believe in the other.

I believe in the Bible. I don't believe that it is a biology/geology/chemistry textbook. It's purpose is not to explain in specific detail "how" God created the earth and all of the intricate details within it. It is a guide to how we are to live and be and how we obtain our knowledge of who God is and the history of his people.

I believe there is a scientific way of explaining how God created the earth, but I understand that that science is also a part of God's creation.
Preach girl!!! I believe that certain animals have evolved and changed over time but not that they've changed into different species and all that. What's this abou dinosaurs? Even if they're not in the Bible, they're still here with us (the bones) correct? How could we negate the existance of them?

And going back the the evoluation thing-referring specifically to Humans, if we did evolve from monkeys/apes, then why do we still have apes? Honestly just wondering....I've always wanted to find an explanation for this.
 
MissBiss said:
The poll results are truly frightening.

Early Christians believed the bible said the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth. Do people still believe that too? How can one take certain parts of the bible literally but not the rest? :confused:
Why are the results frightening to you? Different people/sects interpret the Bible differently...thats them.
 
BerrySweet said:
And going back the the evoluation thing-referring specifically to Humans, if we did evolve from monkeys/apes, then why do we still have apes? Honestly just wondering....I've always wanted to find an explanation for this.
That's an excellent question. I have always wandered too.
 
Isn't it also curious that you don't see any other "transitional" forms? There are no "almost" man apes. Also, even when there are discoveries of fossils that they think are "transitional" always turn out to be just men as we know ourselves today. For creationists the reasons for this are clear. I'm not sure what evolution offers in response to these observations.
 
Jessy55 said:
That's an excellent question. I have always wandered too.

well i may making a total fool of myself, but maybe it's just that we're "cousins" like dog and wolf, or cat and tiger kinda.... we came from a special breed of apes that were "able" to evolve, and the "real" apes are not...

making sense?
 
Mamita said:
well i may making a total fool of myself, but maybe it's just that we're "cousins" like dog and wolf, or cat and tiger kinda.... we came from a special breed of apes that were "able" to evolve, and the "real" apes are not...

making sense?
Scientists have not quite figured that out. I think there are a few scientific theories floating around on this. They've also been looking for what Tasmin referred to as "transitional" forms, aka the missing links for the longest time. No luck so far, but you never know what might happen. New discoveries are made all the time. The idea is that you don't approach science with pre-conceived ideas, you have to be willing to be wrong and change your mind if the facts warrant it.
 
Last edited:
Mamita said:
well i may making a total fool of myself, but maybe it's just that we're "cousins" like dog and wolf, or cat and tiger kinda.... we came from a special breed of apes that were "able" to evolve, and the "real" apes are not...

making sense?
I get where you're coming from but I don't think we're that close to apes to be considered cousins to them. Not like the dog and the wolf.
 
i believe in both G-D did the whole 6day thing then over time things changed
but as far as i know Darwins theory of evolution was never suggested by him as a means of the creation of humans i may be wrong though but i do believe that even humans can evolve ie. grow and change over time i mean think about it people are taller than they use to be on average girls are developing earlier etc.
 
Darwin and others did suggest that humans evolved. For many years attrocites were committed against the Aboriginals people of Australia because they were thought to be the missing link between man and apes. They were considered a "lower" form of human being as were Africans and other "non-white" people.

Many of the changes you describe are not evolutionary in the sense of this discussion but rather a result of better nutrition, more sanity conditions etc. It's better living through chemistry!

Evolutionists use the concept of genetic mutations and "natural selection" to explain the changes that occur as one form transitions to another. However, biologists will tell you that when mutations occur, genetic information is lost. Going from ape, even a special type of ape, to man would involve adding an incredible amount of complex genetic information. We should still see transitional forms even in that process since evolution is an on-going process from what I've read about it. We don't see it in apes, man or any other animal forms. It's been said that there is only a 3% difference in the genetic material in apes and in man. That's still about 120 million genes (I think there's about 3 or 4 billions genes in humans...)

Scientists and science is neither objective nor are they neutral Miss Jessy. Creationists and evolutionists are looking at the same data, just through different "glasses".
 
Tamsin2005 said:
Scientists and science is neither objective nor are they neutral Miss Jessy. Creationists and evolutionists are looking at the same data, just through different "glasses".
Yes, they're human beings so total objectivity is very difficult if not impossible. :)

Starting with a theory/belief, and then looking for the facts to support it, while it is a faith-based approach, is not a scientific approach. The true scientific mind attempts to looks at facts and attempts to form a theory from the facts, and then looks to see if other facts back up the theory. If subsequents facts/discoveries disprove it or put it into questions, a scientist must be willing & ready to relinquish the theory or make necessary changes to it. That is the way that science has been able to make progress.

People believed for centuries that the earth was flat and the facts on hands seem to back it up, but at some point, they had to let go of that belief. If they had not, we would have still been afraid to fall off the face of the earth if we sailed too far on the horizon.
 
Back
Top