What do you think, Creationist or Evolution?

Question

I want the opion of other people on this topic. Please support you answer.

I forgot to add that I believe more in evolution beacause science has proven many theories on many of these events. Who knows, some of the events in the bible might of been exaggerated. Besides, there is little, if any, proof of the events in the bible. In evolution, scientist spend years researching with some amazing findings.

Answer 1

Creationist. The Book of Genesis supports it.

Answer 2

PhD's, philosophers, theologians and run-of-the-mill everyday Joe's, (like me) notwithstanding, it seems to me that the debate is skewed. Each side of the issue is approaching the question with a biased point of view. I call it the "Hamilton Burger Syndrome". I don't know if you're old enough to remember a TV. Series called "Perry Mason", but Mason was a defense lawyer and Burger was the prosecuting DA. Without going into detail, Mason never lost because A.) The shows were written that way, and B.) Because he always was searching for the truth whereas, Burger was always trying to defeat Mason.
That same thing occurs over and again when, alleged scientists collide in debate with alleged theologians over a subject that neither can ever possibly hope to "prove beyond a doubt."
It's been my observation that both points of view on the origin of life and humankind have elements that can be seen as sound.
The scientific method has produced a logic and methodology that addresses practical concerns and questions and develops ways to answer those questions.
The theological approach is no less disciplined but has as it's focus the less practical and although no less significant, more aesthetic concerns and questions.
The question of creation versus evolution is actually moot. The fact is, creation did occur and so did evolution. In fact evolution continues to occur daily, there are some species that evolve within the span of a single generation.
There's lots of evidence on record about humankind, and more is being uncovered now than ever before. Technology has advanced (thanks to the scientific method) to the degree that more questions than ever can be investigated and more theories than ever can be postulated.
The problem is the collective human mind has not kept up. Laptops in the jungles and rural areas of this world before we can agree to agree on basic aesthetics is both amazing and unfortunate.
But the Genie is out of the bottle and humankind will either have to deal with it or go the way of the dinosaur.
Evolution or creation? Both, but what's the point? What about right now? If a definitive, absolute, irrefutable answer were to be given for that question how would it contribute to solving the problems of war, poverty, and the ecological destruction of the planet?
The question shouldn't be who's right, the question should be what's the right thing to do? The way I understand God's Word if we don't get our act together and start taking care of our responsibility as the dominant specie on this earth. If we can't stop allowing our flesh natures to overrule our divine intellectual natures. If we keep missing the point, we'll write our own epitaph
and it'll read, "Here lies humanity, created in the beginning and evolved to destruction."

Answer 3

Evolution is an impossibility, based on the facts, so the obvious answer is Creation.

Support....

No intermediate fossil's, darwin himself stated this would support or negate his theory, he had wondered why he could not find any 150 years ago and still none found.

Mutation is supported as one of if not the way evolution ocurred. Mutations have ALWAYS been a loss of information there has never been a positive mutation. If a cow has a fifth leg that just shows he had the info to create a leg to begin with and it got mixed up along the way. There is never new info added to the DNA such as something that would cause a cow to have wings etc...

Science keeps changing what they believe such as the age of the earth it started out they believed the earth was 70,000 years old and now they are up to something like 25 billion?! This is just due to the fact that their theories can not be supported in a certain time frame so they keep adding years.

Irreducible complexity...Darwin said,"if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." (Origin of Species, 6th ed. (1988), p. 154). Though most scientists will not admit it the eye is a good example of Irreducible Complexity. What this means is that it could not be anything less and function! If it had any of its parts less than what they are it would not work...at all and could not have "evolved"! There is a Professor of Biochemistry by the name of Michael Behe that has proved this exists and this alone should be the end of evolution/Darwinism however it keeps chugging along, because people dont want to believe in a Creator. But if Darwin was alive today he would have, with out a doubt, thrown in the towel and admitted his theory is false. He basically said it 150 years ago!

Everything I have seen from the side of Evolution is/has been proved wrong!

Creation has gotten nothing but support from science the last 50 years.

Answer 4

Evolution. 3 main positive reasons, 1 anti-Creation reason:

Evolution is based on observed facts.
1) Complex living things only come from other complex living things.
2) Offspring share the traits of their parents, and have ALMOST identical genetic sequences.
3) The geological record shows life as going from simple to complex.

Conclusion: There must have been some mechanism (theory of natural selection, neo-lamarkism, etc...) that explains the FACT of evolution. Life somehow got from simple to complex, and given the 3 observations, the only conclusion is that it somehow evolved. The "theory" part is in the mechanism, but some kind of evolution MUST be true in order to explain the 3 observed facts.

Anti-Creation reason:
Evolution is falsifiable. If you ever saw a monkey give birth to a pig, that would be the end of evolution. Period. Ditto if you ever managed to show that every geologist on the planet is wrong about how life went from simple to complex.

Creationism, on the other hand, is not falsifiable. Think about it -- what evidence (hypothetically) would prove it false? A lack a falsifiabiliy means a lack of rational justification for belief.

To take an example: It's the same as the Last Tuesday Theory -- Everything in the universe, including you and all your memories, was created last tuesday.

Go ahead, try to prove it wrong! Just because you can't doesn't mean it's true, it just means it's not rationally justifiable knowledge.

Likewise, creationism is not rationally justifiable knowledge.

*EDIT* Let me add that we're still finding more evidence today: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/07/14/darwin.finches.ap/index.html

Answer 5

I am a Creationist.
If you keep in mind that God is Almighty (nothing is impossible for Almighty) then it really easy explain how everything had happen.
Evolution has gaps that are too big to make theory of evolution considered as possible (Science: if the theory has not been proved it may be never be proved).
If theory of evolution were proved I would have no problem with it, but till then... Because otherwise science becomes politics and quits to be science.
I accept theory which explains things the most complete way; does not matter if it called scientific or not.

Answer 6

I think both is a good answer. The world is way too complex to be an accident. Have you ever heard of the watchmaker theory? I'd suggest to anyone to look into it. Basically, if you found a complex machine lying around on the ground, you'd assume it had a maker, a watch would not evolve(at least it hasn't yet!). However, evolution is a good and somewhat proven explination for how things have changed on their own since they were created.

Answer 7

creationist, the world is to complicated, not to be intelligently design, if we walked out of the water back when evolutionist say we did, its because we walked into the water on our own,look at all the discovery's that have been made DNA,and how every one can be identified from something that small and no one else has the same,that in it's self is enough to solve the question, and if we came from monkeys what happened to the apes and monkeys here are they just retarded human if they are we really are treating our ancestor very badly,how about how long the sun and moon and earth and all the planets are aligned just so , if there weren't the earth would not be able to contain life, how about how your body works just like a world of its own,i mean how could that just evolve,that just to much and look at how our brains work,that's the only think i see evolving,but it it was designed so each generation would be smarter than the next til we have gone as far as our Creator wants us to,and he is a very super intelligent being so intelligent in fact that the human brain can't conceive of him and that's why we have such a problem believing in God , the proof is every where but ,people have just got to educated, it 's as if they can't see the forest for the trees

Answer 8

I think you might as well be saying the earth is flat and the universe revolves around our tiny planet when someone claims a book of religion told them to ignore all fossil records and believe a literal creation story that dates the earth a mere 6000 years.--coincidentally, the beginning of our known civilization beginning to take shape. I think if you don't have the brain capacity to observe something so simple as survival of the fittest and change, if you can't manage to take full account of history and scientific evidence , then fine, go ahead and believe some life manual written by people who had no idea about a teeny fraction of the things we take for granted as common knowledge today...... You would think in a time of understanding, reason and evidence backed science, people would let go of their folklore and mysticism, but no....I think spirituality of some kind must be genetically ingrained in some people left over from our ancient history of civilization. Thats great, but what ever that is, I don't have it. I rely on what I can see, observe, what's proven by evidence and what makes sense because I think for myself.

Answer 9

I actually think BOTH...

God never said much more then he spoke it and it happened. He did not give a time frame, nor did he say exactly how on most things.

I do not believe man evolved from ape. If they did, Ape would not still exist. I do believe man had a lot more hair on them then they do now. But they where not apes.

Big bang theory could have very well happened. God did not say HOW.. He just said he made it into being.
The Birds in the air and the Fish in the sea where created before land animals.. So is it possible that land animals came from fish or something out of the ocean? Sure.. God never said HOW.. he just said he made them.

How long is a God day compared to an earth day? 1000's of years? We do not know...

Answer 10

only someone without the ability to think would say one or the other must be true. in fact neither is exclusive of the other. both describe the same series of events, one usaing physical, testable facts, the other uses untestable assumptions. the biggest difference between them is the time it takes to occur. creationist idea is instantaneous or in very few days, evolution is many billions of years. when you can take a day in the bible and say how long that day is inseconds hours oor years in relation to the physically measurement of time you will have learned how they just the same thing with two explanations, one based on fact the other on faith.

Answer 11

Creation
The evidence we see (and remember the evolutionist and creationist have the SAME evidence: same stars, sun, fossils, lstrata etc.) falls for creation. It is the differing interpretations of the evidence that we must look at.

With this in mind, look at what we see in the earth. Billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by WATER all OVER the earth. If there was a global flood what do you think we could expect to see? Billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by WATER all OVER the earth.

Think about it. What makes up over 90% of the rock out there?? Sedimentary rock...what is that? Rock that used to be MUD. To get mud you need dirt and WATER!!!! Why does the strata have perfect lines between eachother? Where is the erosion if each layer deposited over millions of years?? Hmmmm? Don't say they were compressed either because many layers have ripple marks that haven't been pressed out. There are also fossilized trees running through many strata that are supposedly millions of years in age.

Look at the earth and look at it with the flood in mind... all the evidence will add up. With a global flood, it would make sense why there are not many human and bird fossils... birds fly, then they land on a floating log in a flood, then they die with the turbulent water, then they FLOAT (bones are hollow) so no fossilization for many of them... humans... will go to higher ground and grab something floating then they will too die and some may sink, but the majority bloat and float... then decompose like the bird...