Creation and evolution?

Question

Is the ongoing controversy between creation and evolution actually an ongoing battle between angels and monkeys?

Answer 1

angels and common ancestor of monkeys*

Answer 2

Evolution is scientifically IMPOSSIBLE.

What evolved first? The heart, the arteries, the lungs to oxygenate the blood, the tissues that the blood feeds, the mouth to draw oxygen in to oxygenate the blood, the diaphragm to operate the lungs?
How long would a creature survive if all these things weren't put in place at the same time?
They evolved together? How? The cells drew out a highly technical blueprint and then build on it?
When a whale becomes "beached", does it grow legs to get back in the water?
Micro evolution (species adaptation) is the ONLY kind of evolution there has EVER been.
Evolution demands that information be added to a species.
There is no account of this ever happening with all the research ever done. Every single argument that shows that it does is just someone trying to make an adaptation where no information is added look like there was information added.
No, evolution is scientifically impossible.
PLUS, they try to shy away from the required "First Cause" which is the start of the universe.
The evolution explanation must inevitably be...
"Nothing became something and exploded into a perfectly organized everything without any intelligent designer"
Impossible.

Answer 3

This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Once again, a theologian with no real capacity for logical debate resorts to ad hominem argument. You, my friend, are pathetic.

Evolution has been show to hold true today. The example I always use is that of England's pepper moths. They had white wings a long time ago but when the Industrial Revolution came around and put soot into the environment, their wings started taking on naturally speckled patterns to blend in. They evolved to suit their environment.

As for creationism, I have never seen god create anything. Period.

Answer 4

The belief in evolution is no different then the belief in a Supreme Being. Neither one can be proved. Science justifies itself with a proof that is in constant flux and dynamic "Truths". If you wish to believe that you as a human, emerged from some type of primordial slime pool, then that is your choice. If you choose to believe that you are a unique, special individual that was created and chosen by a Supreme Entity, that is also your choice.

Just remember that "BOTH" are faiths, and unprovable, despite all the flim flam used by the scientific community. Your own instincts about this are as good as anything told to you by science, or preachers.

Answer 5

I know this doesn't quite fit in with your question~but just the other night I couldn't go to sleep, because I was thinking if evolution(coming from monkeys/fish/pond scum) were true, what female would have ever given up her tail? Do you know how handy that would come in with kids/groceries/cleaning the house? And not in just these centuries of "modern times" but from the beginning of time! I believe in Creation~God created everything.

Answer 6

The idea that life is the product of an uncontrolled, purposeless process of coincidence is a 19th century myth. Looking at the matter from the primitive level of the science of the period, evolutionists assumed that life was very "simple".
There are more than a million species living on the earth. How did these creatures with entirely distinct features and perfect designs come into being? Anyone who uses his reason would understand that life is the work of a perfect and supreme creation. However, the theory of evolution denies this explicit truth. It holds that all species on earth evolved from one another through a process based on random occurrences.
The first person to seriously take up the issue of evolution – an idea which originated in Ancient Greece – was the French biologist Jean Baptiste Lamarck. Lamarck's theory, which he postulated in the early 19th century, maintained that "living things transferred the traits they acquired during their lifetime to subsequent generations." In Lamarck's view, for instance, giraffes had evolved from antelope-like animals who extended their necks further and further as they tried to reach higher branches for food. The advent of the science of genetics, however, refuted Lamarck's theory once and for all.
The second important name to defend the theory after Lamarck was a British amateur naturalist, Charles Darwin. In his book The Origin of Species, published in 1856, he claimed that all species descended from a common ancestor through coincidences. According to Darwin, for instance, whales evolved from bears that tried to hunt in the sea.
Darwin had serious doubts as he put forward his assertions. He was not so confident of his theory. He confessed to there being many points which he was unable to explain in the chapter titled "Difficulties On Theory". Darwin had hoped that these problems would be solved in the future with the progress of science, and made some projections. 20th century science, however, disproved Darwin's claims one by one. The common point of Lamarck's and Darwin's theories was that both rested on a primitive understanding of science. The absence of various domains of science such as biochemistry and microbiology at the time led evolutionists to think that living things had a simple structure that could form by chance. Since the laws of genetics were not known, it was supposed that creatures could simply evolve into new species. The progress of science overthrew all of these myths and revealed that living things are the work of a superior creation.

Answer 7

The likelyhood of us "evolving" from matter is according to scientific theory and molecular biologists is 1 in 10 to 100,000,000,000 th power... Even if all the matter in the universe were converted into the buildding blocks of life (amino acids, and nucleotides), and assembly of these blocks were attempted every microsecond for 17 billion years (the approx. age of the universe). the probablility would still be 10 to the 84th power which is 10 with like 5 hundred zeros behind it! You tell me whats a bigger stretch...

Answer 8

According to Sikhism the world was created thus:

God existed all alone in His abstract form-Nirgun-before He created the Universe.This may be called the state of precreation.God was in the sunn samadhi (state of pre-creation, state of contemplation of the void). According to Guru Nanak, there was darkness and chaos for million of years.There were mists and clouds.None existed except God. Guru Nanak says;

"There was darkness for countless years.
There was neither Earth nor sky;there was only His Will.
There was neither day nor night,neither Sun or Moon.
He( God) was in deep meditation.
There was nothing except Himself."( Maaroo mehlaa 1.,page 1035,of Guru Granth Sahib).

Then God willed the creation of the universe.He became manifest :Sargun. He diffused Himself in Nature.Guru Nanak says:"Though created all Thy Universe to please Thyself , to enjoy the spectacle, the reality, which is the light of Thy own Reality-self,"

When was the world created? This is a mystery. Was this process of creation a sudden and impulsive one or was it one of evolution and growth? Only God who created it knows. Like a spider, God spun Himself into a web .A day will come when He will destroy that web once again become His sole self.

The Prakrit of three attributes-Gunas( Rajas,Tamas,Satav )was created by God.Maya, attachment and illusion are also His creation:Guru Gobind Singh writes:

"He created the Shakti of three Gunas;
The great Maya is His shadow ."

Out of the five subtle essences-Sabda(Sound) Sparsh(Touch),Rupa(Sight),Rasa(Taste) and Gandha(Smell) arise five gross elements: ether, air, water and earth respectively.

The Universe is not an illusion-Maya.It is a reality-not final and permanent-but a reality on account of the presence of God in it.

This world is the abode of the Almighty and yet He transcends it.

Answer 9

Why must superstitious religious fools constantly pick on one branch of science that produces evidence supporting a theory. Why are biologists singled out for persecution. Why not argue with chemists that salt was created by god and not by a chemical reaction between sodium and chlorine ? Your totally out of your league trying to argue with people who's IQ is twice yours. Go back to believing that man was created by mixing a blob of dust with a bit of spit.

Answer 10

Darwin was no angel, but Kent "there were dinosaurs on the ark" Hovind sure is a monkey

Answer 11

i think the method god used is "creation through evolution" .remember we experience time as a human, not the same way as the lord delivers time( which is probably instantaneous)