Evolution vs. Creation?

Question

I'm taking a little poll to sample what the percentage between opinions on the evolution vs. creation issue is like. Some people say that evolution is now a falling behind in popularity to creation science...I've always wondered if this is true.

Answer 1

evolution, but keep in mind, I don't think yahoo answers is going to portray an accurately "average" percentage of the population. specially the religion/spirituality section. good luck with your quest though! =)

Answer 2

Talk origins is a very good introduction and provides a good dissection of creationist claims and precisely why they are wrong as well as touching on the evidence for evolution. The problem that you do not realize (and a major factor for many people not accepting evolution) is that it does not fit neatly into the classroom science experiment where you can easily demonstrate the concept, i.e. drop two different sized balls and see that they hit the ground at the same time. Further, there is massive amounts of research that has been done, but most of it tends to be specialized beyond high school levels. Dawkin's recent book "The Great Show on Earth" may be a good reference. The links below should supplement others given to you. Remember, you should check the sources cited and double check claims that are made. Be skeptical and objective and don't accept anything at face value or just because it sounds reasonable.

Answer 3

I believe in evolution, however there is only so far that I can backtrack it before I start running into problems with things like "But where did all the energy and matter come from in the first place?" Some people start going into String Theory and M-Theory at that point, but to me some of those theories start rivalling some of the creation myths with regards to the weirdness factor.

I do not believe in the Christian creation myth (especially not as literal truth), and to be honest most of the other creation myths out there are just as wacky, so I can't really say that Genesis is any worse than the others.

Answer 4

Evolution

Answer 5

Evolution

Answer 6

The dogma of science is the scientific method which discounts anything that can't be verified by analysis. The dogma of creationism is the cannonized beliefs of writings that were created thousands of years ago. Do most people acknowledge the limits of perception? Certainly! Has humanity advanced since the bible writers? Bravo! To lean too heavily in one direction or the other is to close ones eyes to the certain knowledge of proven science or in the other case to choke off any sense of spirituality and mysticism. Choosing one or the other is like having to choose between Coke and Pepsi when you are really not thirsty.

Answer 7

Outdated/Unintelligent Thinking:
Creational theory is a human idea to turn the unknown into the known without proving it. Stories are produced to substantiate the reason for our existence and its supposed to be taken as fact
Believed in...

Current/Intelligent Thinking:
Scientific theory is a human endeavour to turn the unknown into the known through disproving hypothesise until it turns into a proven theory.
I dont know about you but I would choose the one that keeps asking itself if its fact or not, not the one that just says its so

Religion is a way of life. Not the origin of Life. Stop trying to meld the two. It doesnt fit.
(plus ive never wanted to believe in religion that worships a guy nailed to a cross through his wrists anyway. I know theres more religions out there, but christianity is the dominant one here in Australia)

Answer 8

Evolution is a lie!
I cannot make you believe something that you don't want to believe, but I urge you to use discernment, reason and logic when thinking aobut evolution- all the things evolutionists accuse us of not using , but really- do the principles of evolution make sense? If this has taken place over the course of millions of years, little by little, then we are being decieved when we are told we are looking for "the missing link" we are looking for millions of missing links- besides that- there are so many common sense, scientific questions that evolution just cannot answer- no matter how you twist it.
If you are really interested in education and not just disproving something that does not fit your mold- read this article, it is fun reading but very informative and common sense-
Meet Gaspy: the lungfish:

http://www.reflecthisglory.org/study/did...

here are other bits of interesting fact for you to ponder :

Charles Dawson, a British lawyer and amateur geologist announced in 1912 his discovery of pieces of a human skull and an apelike jaw in a gravel pit near the town of Piltdown, England . . . Dawson's announcement stopped the scorn cold. Experts instantly declared Piltdown Man (estimated to be 300,000 to one million years old), the evolutionary find of the century. Darwin's missing link had been identified. Or so it seemed for the next 40 or so years. Then, in the early fifties . . . scientists began to suspect misattribution. In 1953, that suspicion gave way to a full-blown scandal: Piltdown Man was a hoax . . . tests proved that its skull belonged to a 600-year-old woman, and its jaw to a 500-year-old orangutan from the East Indies." Our Times--the Illustrated History of the 20th Century (Turner Publishing, 1995, page 94).

Science Fiction
The Piltdown Man fraud wasn't an isolated incident. The famed "Nebraska Man" was built from one tooth, which was later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig. "Java Man" was found in the early 20th Century, and was nothing more than a piece of skull, a fragment of a thigh bone and three molar teeth. The rest came from the deeply fertile imaginations of plaster of Paris workers. "Heidelberg Man" came from a jawbone, a large chin section and a few teeth. Most scientists reject the jawbone because it's similar to that of modem man. Still, many evolutionists believe that he's 250,000 years old. No doubt they pinpointed his birthday with good old carbon dating. Now there's reliable proof. Not according to Time magazine (June 11, 1990). They published an article in the science section that was subtitled, "Geologists show that carbon dating can be way off." Don't look to "Neanderthal Man" for any evidence of evolution. Recent genetic DNA research indicates the chromosomes do not match those of humans. They do match those of bipedal primates (apes).

What does Science Say?
Here are some wise words from a few respected men of science: "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." (Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research). "Evolution is unproved and unprovable." (Sir Arthur Keith--he wrote the foreword to the 100th edition of, Origin of the Species). "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever." (Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission, USA).

"To suppose that the eye . . . could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

A great resource for some education that is logical and common sense is called "The Science or Evolution: expand your mind" You can get this DVD from WayoftheMaster.com

Answer 9

If you don't believe in evolution, you have no way of understanding the development of new viruses and bacteria. Evolution of more complex species takes longer, but the mechanisms are the same: variations that are able to withstand environmental pressures live on to reproduce. Common ancestry is traceable through both organismic and mitochondrial DNA.

Answer 10

What does God say? Read the Bible.

Even the most brilliant scientist says believe.

In II Peter 2, verses 1 and 2, it says that there are going to be teachers who mock the teaching of Jesus Christ dying for our sins. I Corinthians 15, verses 3 and 4 says Christ died for our sins, he was buried and he rose again the third day according to the scriptures. Now, if the resurrection is just symbolical, then the death must be symbolical. His death was literal. His resurrection is literal. If you don't keep the resurrection, you cannot go to heaven and that is Romans chapter 10, verses 9 and 10. You must accept the literal bodily resurrection of Christ.

Taking the bible literally, it was Sir Isaac Newton and today he's claimed by the scientists of the world to be the greatest mind scientifically to ever exist in history, said just before Christ returns, ministers will mock the idea of a literal Bible. And Sir Anderson who did the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24 said the same thing. They will mock the literal interpretation of the Holy Word of God. Stick to it and believe what it says literally.

Answer 11

Biblical Creation of course. The wheels are coming off the evolution wagon. The mounting evidence is crushing this hoax. One answerer stated they never met an intelligent person who didn't buy into evolution, well, space doesn't permit me to list all the scientists, physicists, astronomers, archaeologists, etc. who believe in Creation, but one person I point to is Dr. Walt Brown, here are his credentials:

Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired full colonel (Air Force), West Point graduate, and former Army ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years in the military included: Director of Benet Research, Development, and Engineering Laboratories in Albany, New York; tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life, Walt Brown was an evolutionist, but after many years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military in 1980, Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and speaking on origins.

And, the wooden stake in the heart of this hoax was delivered by Antony Flew, one of the leading atheist thinkers of the 20th century, he stated:

"My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms." (private interview with Antony Flew, Dec 2004)