Is creationism or stupidity the work of Satan? Since the evolution is true and evolution/creation debate sux?
600224
There is a school of thought that the Biblical inerrancy doctrine is idolatry.  Creationism is the result of the Biblical inerrancy doctrine, and so it is the fruit of idolatry.  It is often claimed by the same people committing this act of idolatry, that idolatry is one of the greatest sins, and is the work of Satan.  From their own perspective, yes, creationism is the work of Satan as a result.\n\nOf course, they'll never admit that assigning divine attributes to a book is idolatry, but it's trivially obvious that it is.
509868
I never heard that story, it strikes me as contrived bollox anyway, but no, it makes no difference.   Anyone that thinks it matters is searching desperately for something to substantiate that anti-intellectual horror: creationism.  Science works because it outlasts every individual scientist, to be tested and refined again by the next generation of open minded clever people.  Evolution has, er, evolved quite a lot since Darwin's time, and many of the puzzles left by him have been solved.   If Newton had recanted, apples would still fall to the ground.
430814
I have a question for you. Have you EVER seriously looked at the evidence for either side? I doubt it, because there is evidence to support creationism. Plenty of it, you just have to look for it because it's not in the mainstream sciences. And there is quite a bit of evidence against evolution as well. Two good websites to look at are www.talkorigins.com and www.trueorigin.org. I think that's the website at least.
956969
I believe that God created evolution.  Therefore, I believe in creationism.  Things evolve, but as far as man coming from beast, no way!
941143
And I've read many books that prove that the bible is a pile of crap.\n\nSo why do you still believe in the bible, and the discredited theory of creationism?
797870
Any creationist who believes things do not evolve are intellectually dishonest.  However, it is reasonable to expect that creationists would have a more limited definition of what 'evolving' encompasses.
430259
I used to think it was enjoyable making fun of creationists.  Their ideas are so wacky, and they are almost completely ignorant of any scientific advance of the past 50 years.  But after a while you realize people like that are just going to believe what they want to believe.  I think it's interesting that when it comes to ANY other branch of science (medicine, computers, genetics, etc.) religious people have no problem accepting science.  ONLY when science contradicts their own unfounded beliefs (creationism) do religious people challenge science.
326636
THIS TOOK ME A WHILE TO TYPE -- I HAVE RESEARCHED THIS A WHILE--BOTH SIDES EVOLUTION AND CREATION--PLEASE READ ALL OF THIS BEFORE SHOOTING IT DOWN... \n\nFIRST, I will talk about what is called THIESTIC EVOLUTION which means, GOD created the universe threw Evolution...\nWhat does the BIBLE SAY ABOUT MILLIONS OF YEARS? \num... NOT that God used Evolution...\n\nSECOND, I will talk about THE BIG BANG; BIG DUD...\n\n=====\nGod made us--However we did not EVOLVE into what we are today--God created ADAM in a matter of minutes not Billions of Years... It is more reasonable to believe that God SPOKE the universe into existance rather than using BILLIONS of years...\n\nI think that God is POWERFUL ENOUGH to do it RIGHT the FIRST TIME...\n\nGod is not IMPERFECT and does not need Billions of years of trial and Chances to Make Creation--He can cirtanly SPEAK everything into existance in a matter of Minutes...\n\n\nPeople use this verse: 2Pet 3:8"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."\n\nThis verse is talking about how GOD is OUTSIDE of our time space continum--IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BIBLICAL CREATION...\n\nThe Bibles says that there was NO death before Adam--I WILL TALK ABOUT THIS IN A MINUTE... If there were Thousands of years before Adam in which Natural Selection took place then that would place DEATH before Adam--The Bible is CLEAR THERE WAS NO DEATH BEFORE ADAM...\n\nI think God is GOOD, he would not use MISFITS and DEATH to bring about creation. God looked upon his creation and said "IT IS GOOD"--Not, It is getting better...\n\nGod created the Earth, Space, Water, Animals and Man in a specific ORDER on different DAYS which could not include thousands of years and this is why: \n\n1. God created Plants on Day 3\n\n2. God created Sunlight on Day 4 \n \n3. If a Day = 1 thousand years then Plants went without sunlight for a thousand years. Plants need sunlight.\n\n-------Still not convinced?\n\n1. God made plants and flowers on day 3\n\n2. God created the Birds and the BEES on day 5\n\n3. Bees polinate the flowers \n\n4. Flowers would have to go TWO THOUSAND YEARS without bee polination--and Sunlight--\n\n-=-=-=-=-=- what about Days and Nights?\n\n1. If one day is a thousand years; the Day would be 500 years and the Night would be 500 years... 500 years is a LONG TIME...\n\n2. Some Animals can not hunt at night and need the day to hunt for food because they can NOT SEE--yet others animals are Nocturnal and need the Night for hunting...\n\n3. If Natural selection is true during this period--Animals needed to HUNT in order to survive;\n\n4. MANY ANIMALS WOULD DIE OFF DUE TO THE NIGHT AND DAY CONDITIONS--Leaving us with ONLY DAY DWELLING CREATURES or ONLY NIGHT DWELLING CREATURES and an unequal balance in the food chain.\n\n-=-=-= How long did God create the Universe?\n\nI think its interesting to note: \n\nUniverse = (Uni-verse) root word, Single Spoken Verse(word)\n\nGod SPOKE the universe into existance\n\nBecause the Bible says so: -Then God said "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky, to separate day from night. Let them mark the fixed times, the days and the years, and serve as luminaries in the dome of the sky, to shed light upon the earth." And so it happened\n\nGOD SAID; IT WAS SO....\n\nGod SPOKE the universe into existance...\n\n-=-=-=-WHAT ABOUT ADAM?\n\nIf Natural Selection was the case, there would be Thousands of years of DEATH before Adam...\n\n\nHowever, the Bible teaches Adam sin brought Death;\nDeath entered the world because of man's(Adams) sin:\n\n"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin: and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" Romans 5:12 "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses," Romans 5:14 "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead." I Corinthians 15:21-22 &q
1085579
Agreed.  They both can be believed together.  This is another point of evidence that the Fanatics on all sides are the one's making it difficult for others to be open minded.  You have certain Atheists who claim Evolution proves there is no God (Evolution does no such thing... it is not out to prove or disprove the supernatural.)  And then you have those Christians who claim that Creation could not have come about thru Evolution.  Which merely shows me that, though I'm not exactly super-intelligent on the subject of Evolution, but even I know better than to make silly statements such as these.
8356
I suggest you do a bit more research on your thermodynamics debate.  Please check out this website, which explains exactly what thermodynamics is, which you seem to be lacking in understanding of:  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html\n\nSecondly, there are many people that believe that evolution simply doesn't exist.  That all things were created, and that all things will continue to be created by a greater force.  However, as there is no proof, this too remains a theory, however much the creationists dislike it being called thus.\n\nThe problem that i see with the evolution vs creationist issue is that evolution has been proven to take place in the animal kingdom.  We have seen, for example, 2 exact same species grow up in completly different geographical areas and be 100% different from each other.  They evolved from one state into another to adapt to the surroundings of their enviornment.  Creationists attribute this to god giving them new traits, ect, that allow them to interact and adapt with their new surrounding.  Evolutionists, however, can see the 'paper trail', ie the evolutionary trail of these species, from the failed, to the development of traits and abilities over long periods of time.\n\nFossiles, which are one good source of information, are one of the good ways of proving evolution took place.  But, just as the positer said, evolution is indeed a theory at the moment; but we are ever increasingly stepping closer to proving it a reality. Whereas the creationists are still within the 'theory' state, and unfortunatly for them, their 'theory' isn't even a true 'theory'.  It is a simple form of religious-biased fact, instead of a documented possiblity.\n\nSo, are there people out there that don't use the bible to argue against evolution, sure, why not; but most of the time, these people have no clue about the dynamics of evolution and the debate in which it takes place.\n\nAnd, as is typical of any debate that must accept a defeat, creationists have taken a passive aggressive stance, in making pepole believe that god created evolution.  This is laugable at best, because it is one way for a person who believes in creationism, but who also understands that evolution is a possibly, to cop out of the debate and say that 'god' created the premise by which evolution took place.\n\nSounds kind of fishy to me :)
1133128
I read the answer to the question "How did marsupials get to Australia?" and the article "The Grand Canyon, Things That Make Evolutionists Look Stupid". Is it the same people that say evolutionists have no evidence and that their explanations are ridiculous? Whoa!\n\nGood to know that several christian churchs/organizations accept evolution as a valid theory and that it doesn't contradict their belief. And I wonder too, is it ok for christians to lie in such shameless ways?
352659
Um, spur4eight, sorry but Creation Science is not what most would consider "true science."\n\nPersonally, I don't understand how anybody who knows anything about science can think that "scientists are lying about evolution" or some silly thing like that.  Just go and talk to a scientist.  Go to a university, better yet.  Seems to be about the only place that people actually think anymore...
1103745
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AskXuePpa94gGx4SZ6MNFDfsy6IX?qid=20060614234609AACFh0S\n\nCheck out fs, pastorJ and ddead_alive's comments. One of them actually included the infamous "banana argument," which, unbeknownst to creationists, is the laughing stock of intelligent people everywhere.\n\nAnd also: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AkEkeuFumUCm_Sh38t1sUXzsy6IX?qid=20060611215843AAGeScT\n\nI provided scientific evidence refuting jayslug's idiotic claims, and he admitted that he completely ignored them, so I reiterated my scientific stance in the "Add a comment" part.\n\nAnd personally, I'm going to vomit if I have to read the word "evolutionist" one more time. The word is "scientist." Also, I'll hurl if I hear one more person say that there is no evidence for evolution, there is no science behind evolution, it is just a theory (which means it is accepted as a fact by the scientific community), and will never be proven (no theory in the history of science has been "proven").\n\nEdit (To Jackson): The "cop-out" theory that the universe has always existed is the most scientific and logical theory, and is accepted by most scientists. Due to the law of conservation of mass and energy, matter cannot be created or destroyed, and therefore, the matter that comprises the universe has always existed.\n\nAs far as the "life from lifelessness" goes, I'm guessing that you are unfamiliar with the famous Miller-Urey experiments, in which it was found that amino acids, the building blocks of life, can be produced from non-living elements. I would suggest you educate yourself before asking stupid questions. Start here:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey\n\nEdit (To g2gtech): I'm not totally sure (or at all sure) that this guy understands what the fossil record is, how minuscule of a time 500 years is in a geological sense, and, well, this person's last point is completely irrelevant to any evidence that I've ever heard regarding the theory of evolution.\n\nEdit (To birddawg): I would be highly interested in seeing your sources for the Albert Einstein quote, because I happen to have a few works of his, and he was an atheist.\nFrom The Princeton University Press:\n\n"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and have never denied this but expressed it quite clearly. If something is in me that can be called religious, then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."\n\nAnd from The New York Times:\n\n"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own--a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."\n\nAnd from The New York Times Magazine, in an article entitled "Religion and Science":\n\n"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere...Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."\n\nAnd as far as other famous scientists go, Steven Hawking, Carl Sagan, Thomas Alva Edison, Sigmund Freud, Francis Crick, James Watson, Richard Feynman, Albert Schweitzer, Ernst Mayr, Charles Proteus Steinmetz and Thomas Szasz are all either atheists, or highly skeptical of the idea of god and
491995
Satan created mankind. All of the ancient texts point to this. Christianity and judaism have tortured Satan's name for their own benefit. I feel that everything I have in life I owe to Him, and He rewards me every day. Other religions teach people to be stupid. "Dont eat from the tree of knowledge!"  Well I say "why not???"  You should want to know what the Gods know. You should want to ascend to a level of Godhood. Anything less is selling your existance and purpose short. We use 5% of our brains. It is the judeo-christian beliefs that have caused this to mankind. And for what? A book created by Constantine? Satan is not evil. All He ever wants and asks is that mankind use his brains and ability to the maximum extent. All other religions preach to DENY knowledge. Satan saved mankind when other "Gods" wished to destroy mankind. Yes, I love Satan.
518798
"Creationists" are functionally illiterate, so what else would you expect?\n\nAnyone who defines "evidence" to mean "because I said so" is clearly illiterate. And that is all the "evidence" they have to support the "creation" argument.\n\nThe universe has always existed and was not created by anyone or anything.
1138125
Evolution is a theory. It is what science is all about. Religion and Science can go hand in hand. I believe the biblical creation story of 7 days to God is actually like a million years to us!! god gave man intellect to study the creators creation therefore study God's marvelous works. peace.
1147274
A better question: Since Satan is so smart, would he REALLY make it so that "his work" can be picked out so easily? Satan could be GOD for all humans know; don't you think that would be the more ingenious move?