I will (metaphorically) box you on this one.

Now, from your comments it seems as though your religion has been based around the precepts of the Christian faith, but you aren't sure if that particular religion is completely correct. Let me know if I'm wrong in this .

Now, to start with, as a creationist, do you simply claim that any of the evidence that has been used to prove the theory of evolution is false, or do you subscribe to the school of thought that evolution is the tool that god used? (at this point, not arguing, shooting for a clarification).

Is there really any point in arguing over religion? In most cases, it ends up just causing wars, fights, etc.

I suppose that is correct. Mind you, Christian faith is based on the precepts of Jewish faith, as is Muslim faith. All three worshop the same God, which is the God I believe in.

I don't look at it as a tool. Evolution is a defining factor of life. All life evolves, and all life was intended to evolve. If it didn't, it wouldn't be alive.

Okay, so you follow that the Abrahamic God is the true god, but just aren't sure if the New Testaments are real?



Sorry, what I meant was, as a creationist, you believe that the earth was created by god. How do you reconcile evolution with your belief? Is it something god used to create life (i.e. life evolved because that's how god wanted it), is it a fake idea by athiest scientists, or perhaps it's something god put into creatures after he created them?

Correct. Although... I'm sure the events happened. Jesus lived, etc... the divine aspects of it are not entirely believable. But possible.



God wanted life to have the ability to evolve. But he does not define how life evolved. Life evolves on it's own.

"I was not trying to argue science vs. religion, I only stated that belief in God is not ridiculous. Science can only hypothesize about what is observable. Anything beyond observation can only be guessed at or imagined. However, just because it’s not observable does not mean it does not exist."

Clarification: What the scientists actually argue is that anything which cannot be observed or interacted with does not matter, because it would thus have no impact on the scientist or the world in general. Science furthermore states that it has not found G-d in any of its observations or interactions and therefore G-d does not matter to science. This view is taken by atheist and also accepted by religious scientists, though they would not state it in those precise words.

I firmly believe that there will come a time when science hits and impasse and has no alternative but to accept that there is One Supreme Being running everything. I think it'll take a while, since the distance between us and Him is great, and it is entirely possible that we will reach the heat-death of the universe before that time, but... well, I'm holding out hope.

"God wanted life to have the ability to evolve. But he does not define how life evolved. Life evolves on it's own."
According to the Jews who resolve the two opinions, the process is considered to have started from the idea of the end result, following the precept 'last in deed but first in thought'. Thus it would be that G-d began the process of evolution in order to get to the point of Mankind (it would actually be in order to get to the next step after this one, being mankind in a world at peace with itself).

I don't believe the creation of Man has any bearing on evolution. They are separate acts.

I agree with this in a way. I'm a devout atheist and scientist (if such a thing truly exists), and while I don't believe that there was a creator who was the cause of the cause of the cause of the universe as my RE teacher once put it, I don't believe that this same entity is omnipotent, omniscient or any other omni that runs in a similar context, and I don't believe that this entity created man, life on earth or anything like that.

However, I don't pretend that I can rule out the possibility of a being completely different to us. I know it sounds Star Trek, but who says that a being that evolves far enough won't become energy, or that a being won't simply come directly to energy? After all, if you go down far enough, all matter is energy, so what would stop energy in a different form from acting like matter energy.

So I can accept a being of pure energy, a being of silicon base, a being of carbon base, or even an artificial being, but will I accept that it created the universe, the sun, the earth and life? Not without some absolutely irrefutable proof.

"I don't believe the creation of Man has any bearing on evolution. They are separate acts."
Unless you believe that man's existence came about in a different manner than evolution then they are inseparable acts.

"So I can accept a being of pure energy, a being of silicon base, a being of carbon base, or even an artificial being, but will I accept that it created the universe, the sun, the earth and life? Not without some absolutely irrefutable proof."
Sounds to me like someone is trying to avoid responsibility...
"Any kind of being that exists which does not obligate one towards a certain course of action can be believed with a minor amount of proof. A being that exists which created you, thus is possible of obliging you towards a certain course of action, must be proved absolutely."
That's what I'm hearing.

Man was created separately from animals.