Do you believe in God or evolution? (Page 9 of 15)

Kaboom.

(I posted the unreviewed version, please excuse any typos or screw ups. I recieved an A on this paper. There is an aggressive stance in this paper, which isnt really how pasionate I am on the subject, i have my reservations. However my professor advised me to do so for the paper.)

24 November 2008
                                 Evolution or Creationism? The Debate for How the World Began
A question that has plagued humanity since time began has been how it began. The most followed views today, ones that originated thousands of years ago, often have an all-knowing entity as a creator of the universe. One of the most prominent of these religious views is that of Christianity, which has no more fault than any other religion. However, it is a prime example to use in shedding light on the shocking errors found within the religion itself. These errors, based on fact, not speculation or theory, have originated from archeological and historical finds. They provide real evidence to show the inconsistency in Christianity and other major religions. When so many discrepancies are found in a religion, its creation myth should definitely be called into question
Many people are reluctant to even consider evolution as being the beginning of mankind. However, they can not be blamed, these are the people who grew up learning about God and the story of Adam and Eve. They also grew up worshipping God along with their families and friends. It is because of this that some of those people who are just now beginning to see the truth in evolution are also beginning to see how evolution and religion can coexist (Evans 1). In an article published in the magazine The American Biology Teacher, the author Ronald Johnson explains how many college students are beginning to display this coexistence. Although they first were solely dedicated to creationism, they began to get older and understand how evolution is possible (Johnson1).
The arguments that were presented to these students were no doubt the reason why they began to believe in evolution. For many years, creationism believers discredited the possibilty of evolution by saying that no credible evidence existed. They claimed that archeological findings were not concrete enough to be acceptable. These arguments are perfectly within reason. However, a recent zooilogical finding provides incredible evidence to support it. A certain species of Finches were recorded as changing in body size and beak shape that lived on another remote island. These finches were displaying different characteristics because they had different conditions on the island than normal finches did on the mainland. From 1972 to 2001, several body changes and beak variations were recorded. This is modern, real, fresh evidence that these birds evolved. (Grant 1)
This particular example has to be expounded upon to see how it relates to the mainstream idea of evolution. Over a course of only 29 years, these birds displayed evolution. This shows that it is perfectly possible that over billions of years, primates could have evolved into humans. Putting the visual evidence aside, meaning actually seeing the physical similarities between primates and humans, this actual example of evolution in action shows how humans most likely evolved from primates. This evolution chain goes down all the way to one celled organisms.
Although evolution can be proved many times and in many ways, this is always never enough to convice creationism believers. Sometimes, one must disprove religion as well. This can be done by pointing out the the discreptancies in religion. Christianity, although a tense subject, displays some of these interesting points that bring into question the whole religion. The existence of Jesus Christ, whom the religion is based upon, can be called into question. It is a challenge for some to put faith into something that has very little proof. The ‘proof’ of Jesus’ existence is solely in the Holy Bible, and why wouldn’t he be in the book of his religion? The bible, although inspiring and a true testament to good in humanity, is biased. Other sources should be examined. For example, no credible historians of Jesus’s era even mention his existence. Someone who did such amazing miracles across Europe and Asia would definitely be noticed. (Zeitgeist 1)
    In the book I Believe in the Historical Jesus, the author Howard Marshall had this to say about the multitude of writings centered around Jesus:
A writer in a secular journal commented recently that so many books about Jesus are appearing at the present time hat it would take a full-time reviewer simply to keep track of them without looking at books on other subjects. According to one estimate, the forty years between 1910 and 1950 saw the publication of some 350 lives of Jesus in the English language alone. Since that time the amount of writing about Jesus has swollen to fantastic proportions; even simply to read surveys of books about Jesus would keep a man busy for some time. It is not only the Christians – of every theological hue – who have written about Jesus. A sizable proportion of recent studies have come from the pens of Jews and Communists, each of whom have their own reasons for being interested in Jesus (Marshall 11).
This quote shows the obvious interest in the holy figure. However, bring into consideration how each one of those writers who wrote about Jesus could have or might have written something fabricated. The first writing about Jesus is from the Bible, if anything, that book would be the most accurate and truthful. However, there are many other people, from different religions even, who are writing books about Jesus’ life that may be wrong entirely. That’s years of doubt and fabrication that could mean that Jesus never existed in the first place. Having such doubt in the main figure of a religion can make some disregard the religions claim for the beginning of existence.
    All this information is not to say that the creationism believers have nothing but God to support them. There are many creationism believers that have good evidence to support their point. The point that many creationism believers make is that the evolution believers have little to no evidence to support evolution. They claim that there is no debate at all. A notable point they bring up is that evolution insists that at one point, life just sprang into existence. The creationists make the claim that this is impossible due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This Law contradicts the evolutionists’ point that over time, simple one celled organisms or simple atoms evolved into complex beings because the Law explains that time is the enemy of complexity. This means that time actually hinders the development of organisms (All About Creation1).
    This point would seem undeniable, yet there are flaws with this as well. It would seem that no matter how much time passed, inorganic could not develop into a complex organic being. Yet there is the possibility that the creationists took the Second law of Thermodynamics out of context. It is perfectly plausible for life to develop over many, many years. A good example would be how weeds develop in an empty plot of land after water and sunlight get to it. If the resources are there, like water which is the major building block of life, then life finds a way to use the resources to develop.
    Another notable point the creationists bring up are the discrepancies with the Big Bang theory, which is the theory of universe that most evolutionists believe is the most probably explanation. In an article put on ‘allaboutevolution.com’ the author says:
“In the Evolution vs. Creation conflict, Evolutionists do quite well in terms of theoretical science, but fail to find empirical evidence. Evolutionists theorize that the universe, with all that it contains (space, time, matter and energy), exploded from nothing. This is contrary to the First Law of Thermodynamics. Where did space, time, matter and energy come from in the first place? Thus, for Evolutionists, the ultimate question of Origins remains unsolved. To complicate the Evolutionary position, this original explosion of everything from nothing is unable to explain all of the complexity and fine-tuning in the universe, including cosmic "voids" and "clumps", retrograde motion of the galaxies, etc.”
This is another good point against evolutionists and their beliefs. Yet, this is once again another instance in which creationists took the First law of Thermodynamics out of context. This first law is one that is used for current life that has already began. Before the Big Bang or the creation of the universe, things were very different. It is perfectly possible that the universe sprung forth from one, central energy or entity. It is probably much more complex than that, however creationists choose to believe the default and cut corners by just saying that God or a mystical entity is the source for creation. The mention of “voids” and “clumps’ also being unexplained is just wrong entirely. The Big Bang accounts for these astrological anomalies because the voids and clumps are other things that sprung forth, just like planets and stars.
    Both sides have their discrepancies and problems. Yet, the theory of evolution just seems the most probable. Creationism insists that one spiritual or mystical being is what began life, yet that is the easy way out. It is the easily understood and explainable reason. Life is much more complex than that. Creation was an idea thought up by people thousands of years ago who didn’t know any better, people who couldn’t explain why the sun burned or why water quenched their thirst. Now that civilization is more advanced, their ideas on creation should also be more advanced.

Works Cited
Evans, Margaret. "Cognitive and Contextual Factors in the Emergence of Diverse Belief Systems: Creation versus Evolution." 4 May 2000. Science Direct. 27 Nov. 2008 <http://http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=articleurl&_udi=b6wcr-458w1yp-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=c000050221&_version=1&_urlversion=0&_userid=10&md5=97c6a72369fb0c2d52aaff3ae11cf955>.
"Evolution Vs Creation  - A Contentious Debate." 1 Dec. 2008 <http://http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evolution-vs-creation.htm>.
Grant, Peter R., and Rosemary Grant. "Unpredictable Evolution in a 30-Year Study of Darwin's Finches." 26 Apr. 2002. Science AAAS. 27 Nov. 2008 <http://http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/296/5568/707>.
Johnson, Ronald L., and Edward Peeples. "The Role of Scientific Understanding in College." 1987. JSTOR. 27 Nov. 2008 <http://http://www.jstor.org/pss/4448445>.
Marshall, Howard. "The Rediscovery of Jesus." 2001. Google Book Search. 27 Nov. 2008 <http://http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=w0gvdsmkkrmc&oi=fnd&pg=pa11&dq=doubting+jesus&ots=blg-8e6hq0&sig=gn2itj67zpt0p8zua3ximvjrzei#ppa11,m1>.
Zeitgeist, The Movie. Dir. Peter Joseph. Zeitgeistmovie.com. 18 June 2007. The ZeitGeist Movement. 7 Apr. 2007 <http://http://zeitgeistmovie.com/main.htm>.

The Bible NEVER said ANYTHING about Jesus going to Europe OR Asia! All in all, that was extremely biased. But like I said, you can't not be biased one way or the other, unless your last sentence ends with a question mark. And to answer that question mark, you have to assume your own view is right.

P.S. I proved evolution by putting a bunch of metal and junk in a box and shaking it around for a million years. I now have a very nice watch that tells time, day, month, and year! LOL

You always say that, but the King James Version was translated directly. Only the word in italics were changed to clarify their meaning. And those are usually words like "it", "no", "if", and words like that. It was those Catholics that went crazy with translations, and the church of England that fought so fiercely against an English translation of the Bible.

Well, if one person made a mistake thousands of years ago, then that same mistake would keep showing up again and again, but no one would ever realise it. We don't know about what might've been secretly removed "for our own good" way back when.

Or secretly put in for that matter. A good example is Christmas. Christmas began as a pagan holliday where servants were treated to dinner and luxuries by their masters and everyone got **** drunk and had a great time. It caught on so much that the church incorporated it into the religion to decrease the appeal to pagan religions and increase the appeal to christianity.

I tend to follow that philosophy as well.

Just clearing this up.  Your "ticket to heaven" as defined by the Christian faith is not based on your actions.  It is based on the person having a relationship with Christ.  And when trying to emulate Him, as we are taught, the good actions should come automatically.  Be sure you have studied the faith before posting. 

And another question.  Have any of you saying how the Bible has been lost in translation studied textual criticism?  Or are you just saying what would seem logical to you?

It's so hard for me not to just give up on you peoples and just say "I tried. Tell me what Heck's like." But I'm not going to leave you to you're fate! I'm here to help, not force my Religion on you. Remeber, the Lord is the prince of peace!

I think God will let "compromisers" into heaven, but I think he'll be disapointed. After all if a Christian can't believe Genesis, then can he believe the rest of the Bible?

He sure did!! Separation of Church and State is a good thing!

I'm certain a Christian can quite easily believe that, say, the first four books of the Bible can be interpreted as symbols, while still believing the rest of the Bible.