Why do people believe what they believe?

Welcome to the forum Lam.First of all, I'm a little unsure this covers all creationists. Many creationists accept speciation and know that Natural Selection is fact. Infact, that means that we almost are evolutionists as evolutionists claim that there is no macro/micro and that lots of micro = macro. Therefore, I personally - though I am creationist, am almost evolutionist as I seem to agree with speciation and Natural Selection is, well - fact. Speciation however, I would say, was/has been shown is speciation within a kind. And at the moment I fail to see how Natural Selection - being a culling process of information, can = evolution. I don't think this way because I need to, and if creationism was disputed and recognised as false tomorrow I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep and an iota of faith. As a creationist I am ultimately in search of truth.If what you are saying is that evolution because of Natural Selection = no G-d, then I can never become evolutionist and can never think evolution is truth because of my deep religiosity when dealing with Hashem.Drop the "evolution = no G-d" and I would probably become an evo. However, for the moment I cannot see time as a contributing factor or a helper of evolution. I see time as an enemy of life which = degredation/death and age.Hope you understand my full position is not one of bigotry, and maybe you can come to see that we are not all ignoramuses for pretence of scientific achievement.
God bless. Mike.P.s. DC85, I think "secondlaw" confuses abiogenesis with evolution.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 03-30-2004]

Well, I don't really disagree with you, I just thought that your first reason described abiogenesis, which evolutionists claim has nothing to do with evolution as evolution deals with how life changed and survived, and not how it started. That is what they claim anyway. Apparently, I think abiogenesis used to be a part of the Theory but is no longer, I can't be sure but I think that is what happened.

Fair enough Ned, it was a bit of mis-information I digested in the past. I thought it used to be a part of the Theory but if I'm wrong I'm wrong. I guess I was right about the confusion of abiogenesis and evolution. I will admitt that when learning what I have learned about evolution (not much) that nobody mentioned abiogenesis as a part of the Theory, consider me refuted, I knew I could have been wrong about this so I was cautious with my words.

Lol, consider me out of this debate. It'll take a dive into "what's abiogenesis in relation to evolution" if I say anything more. I feel what Ned said was fairly accurate, when discussing life and how it evolved it is going to be only natural to maybe ask then, "where did it come from". I for one, will not consider abiogenesis as evolution, if only to be fair to the evolutionists who get frustrated with us imposing it onto them, it's almost a strawman position.Okay, please don't run with this, because I'd like message 1 to be the continuing theme.

I have started a similar topic, I hope it fits your request. MrHambre - Abiogenesis and Origins[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 03-30-2004]