If I was straddling the fence on the evolution/creation debate, what sort of evidence would sway me either way

Question

I can honestly say that John2:22 didn't do the trick.

Answer 1

Don't look at me, Dearheart....I'm still trying to figure out how long God's day is.

Answer 2

Listen, I was a creationist until I took a class on evolution. Now I know you can follow the idea that God created the universe and it took MORE than 7 days. (Anyway, how do we know just how long a day is in God's eyes.)

This is my biggest evidence:
The earth was hit by 6 big impacts. Each of those impacts led to the evolution of earth on some level.
That means that there are 7 times in earth history (relatively evenly spaced) We are in the 7th.

One more thing. If you follow the order of creation, with the exception of a few animals being in a different part of the evolution idea it syncs up.

It is OK to believe both. After all, if God created the earth in 7 human days that shows how great He is that He could do all that in just 7 days. If God took 7 billion/million years to create everything that shows how great He is because it took that long but he knew exactly what he wanted his finished product to be.

Answer 3

As there is no clear evidence either way (one is extrapolation or interpolation of 'known' behaviour and the other is purely 'faith' in a text) you can only have an opinion based on your belief system.

I personally have no problem with the theory of evolution and the 'big bang' as it is the only one that seems to have anything other than a rather blind faith unsupported by anything other than faith itself.

For those that will post that how could evolution and the big bang have come about from nothing then I would answer ... where did God come from (saying it always existed is as much a cop out as matter has always existed).

I wouldn't consider sitting on the fence to be a bad position ... enjoy the view :-)

Peace out

Answer 4

I don't see why it has to be either or. If God can do anything, why couldn't he have created living things through the process of evolution? Even my super-religious mom can't explain away evolution. She just believes that God caused things to evolve. There is just so much evidence of evolution (fossils, similar body structures of creatures in simialr enviroments, the birds on the galopogos islands that are the same type of bird except for a few specialized traits different on each island to help them survive better on that particualr island, etc.) The bible says that God created everything, but it doesn't say specifically that he didn't do it by means of evolution. It does say that he created everything in 7 days, but God is eternal, so a day to him could be millions of years. There's no reason why you couldn't accept evolution (which there is a lot of evidence for) as well as accepting God (who probably doesn't care as much about whether you believe in the myhtology of the bible as much as he cares that you are a good person).

Answer 5

Why do you think the two are mutually exclusive? You can believe in both without any problems.

For example, evolutionists think that every living thing came from a single life source that began in the primordial soup of the new earth. They can't tell you how that life began. It was God.

Somewhere down the evolutionary path, one branch split off and the first humans came to be. How did that particular evolutionary path develop? God.

See, it's pretty easy to see both things at work - God put evolution in motion and it's still going on.

Answer 6

According to the Biblical account of creation, the Earth is thousands, not billions of years old. The age of the Earth is important, because in order for evolution to occur, millions of years are needed. If the Earth is only 7-10 thousand years old as Creationists claim, then evolution cannot be true. This is why this is a major topic in the evolution vs. creation debate.The following dating methods are argued as evidence of a young Earth.

Accumulation of helium in the earth's atmosphere. Helium-4 is created by radioactive decay and is constantly added to the atmosphere. Helium is not light enough to escape the Earth's gravity (unlike hydrogen), and it will therefore accumulate into large quantities over time. The current level of helium in the atmosphere would accumulate in 200,000 years or less. So if this is true, the Earth must be young.

Decay of the Earth's magnetic field. Over the time that measurements have been recorded, the dipole component of the earth's magnetic field has decreased. Assuming the earth's initial magnetic field has been decreasing ever since its creation would lead to the conclusion that the Earth is young. Assuming a half-life of 1400 years based on 130 years' worth of data, the earth's magnetic field would have been impossibly high, even as few as 8,000 years ago. Therefore, based on this dating method, the Earth must be younger than that.

Accumulation of metals in the oceans. This dating method is based on the amount of metals currently present in the oceans and the amount of metals carried by rivers into the oceans each year. Assuming the amount of metals carried into the oceans by rivers has been constant since the creation of the Earth, this method indicates that the Earth is young. These estimates vary widely depending on what metal is considered. However, all metals yield an age for the Earth of much less than one billion years, using this method.

DNA and RNA comparisons
By comparing differences in the molecular sequences of DNA and RNA molecules, biochemists try to classify species by their degree of similarity at the molecular level. The validity of these calculations is controversial. For example, all frog species look similar, "but their molecules differ as much as those of mammals, a group which contains such fantastically diverse forms as the whale, the bat, and the kangaroo."(Johnson, 1991). Humans and apes do have similarities at the molecular level. However, similarities do not prove a common ancestry.

Cytochrome c.
Another molecular comparison that is made uses cytochrome c., a protein. Looking at cytochrome c. however shows that there is little difference in the percentage of divergence between bacteria and many other organisms, including seame plants, silkworms, and humans.

Mitochondrial DNA
Mitochondrial DNA has been analyzed in the study of human descent. One analysis showed that all contemporary humans were descendants of a woman who lived in Africa less than 200,000 years ago. If this is true, than all the hominid fossils found in Africa that are older than 200,000 years old could not be in the line of descent leading to modern humans. Is the molecular evidence conclusive in proving evolution? The answer has to be "No".

Answer 7

-how could there be male and female by chance and the mechanism by which they reproduce?
-now here's the evolution-killer: if two species are different and reproduce their offspring is sterile..ie. a horse and a zebra (zorse) and a donkey and a horse (mule)..so how could they evolve into new species if their genetic makeup is so different? Also the mutations that would cause this so called "evolution" mostly do not survive the next generation unless by certain circumstances...why isn't sickle-cell anemia an evolved part of humans too?
-how could an explosion (the big bang) create order?
that's why it's always good to know both sides of an issue so you can argue ur side better

Answer 8

If Darwin is right, I should see other creatures evolving to be humans too, since we're the best survivors. I've yet to see a real walking man with tail.

If the theory of evolution is right, evolution is a constant motion, not by batches. Then we should be seeing concrete proofs of animals evolving in different stages.

If the theory of evolution is right, men do not need to invent aeroplanes. We just need to start growing wings. Why does it stay stagnant at the homo sapien stage?

Answer 9

I was raised in a staunch Catholic religion, and I have now lived without going to church, or having any religious faith for about 20 years. I have read the bible from cover to cover, and I have read science journals forever. I still can not say which is correct. Even science admits to having errors and fault, and the Bible, requires a certain amount of faith, so either way, there is no absolute. I have a come to the conclusion that there is room for both. Things have evolved, you can see that even your lifetime. But it all falls back to one thing, something had to create the original cell of life that all things evolved from.

Answer 10

I think you should ask yourself, "Was Darwin's hypothesis valid?" Everybody thinks in terms of the Theory of Evolution. That theory was based on the hypothesis that survival justifies barbarism. This is totally Anti-Christ. The rest of the debate will continue until Evolution is replaced by another Theory. And Christians will debate that Theory for centuries to follow.

Answer 11

There is no conflict between science and reiligion, even though many people try to make them conflict. Both can be true. People need to understand that it is certainly possible that God used evolution as a tool to create man and all the species on the planet.