im looking for answers that are edging more towards the cretionism but it would be intresting to hear from some evolutionists as well.!!! thank you very much for yor time!
2006-10-23 14:08:56 · 7 answers · asked by mosaic 123 1 in Education & Reference ➔ Homework Help
Creationism (not the junk science, but the doctrine) and evolution are not incompatible. Simply stated, Creationism means God created the universe. Evolution (not evolutionism) is the study of the origins of diversity of life on Earth.
I am absolutely convinced of evolution. I have compared sequences of genes and see how duplications and mutations affect life. I have looked at the structures of cells, and understand how they can interact to form a simple or complex organisms. I am not an "evolutionist", I am a biologist with more than twenty-five years of study behind me.
Creationism is more difficult for me. I only have a few college physics courses and some additional reading to go on. The intricate structure of the universe learned from physics lacks the haphazardness found in biological systems. When I look at the universe, I am more inclined to believe that it was created than "just happened", but this is a very difficult question. Compared to biology, I have neither the training nor the experience in physics to more than scratch the surface.
Until you take the years to study the questions, I suggest that you accept that God created the universe, and life evolved. Shun those who muddle the two questions.
2006-10-23 16:24:31 · answer #1 · answered by novangelis 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The truth is, there is absolutely no "PROOF" of evolution. People say there is because that is what they have been told, but most of those people are ignorant and have done absolutely no honest research on the subject. It is a theory that is so full of holes I am astounded that the schools teach it. Anyone who studies any part of creation in any detail will soon have to close their minds to the reality of creative design, or will have to admit that chance could not have produced the intricacies of nature. Look up intelligent design or creation science on the internet. I will not be accused of being so gullible as to believe that a few muddy cells hit just the right combination to produce the marvels of the feather, or the human eye or the depth of the human spirit.
2006-10-23 15:34:09 · answer #2 · answered by whiteparrot 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The theory of evolution is a scientific theory for which there is plenty of evidence.
Creationism is a speculation for which there is no evidence.
To believe in the Biblical story of the Creation, I'd have to believe that Moses accurately portrayed what was going on, and I don't. He missed the boat on Noah's Ark (pun intentional), so it's a safe bet that he didn't get the details right on Creation either.
2006-10-23 14:35:30 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You may be looking to bolster a preconceived notion, but the truth does not care what you believe. It no more matters what I believe, but evolution by natural selection is a theory that is supported by mountains of evidence and has great predictive power. Creationism, on the other hand, does not even meet the test of internal coherence, has no evidence to support it and could not predict next Tuesday.
2006-10-23 14:27:35 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
extensive predicament? to date as i comprehend, evolution is a medical concept... it is, in essence, an speculation which has been repeatedly examined till it grew to alter into stable adequate to be a concensus. 250 000 peer reviewed articles as against 0. What a predicament! it is so "untrue" that we use in drugs immediately; so "untrue" that we can direct archeological searches as a consequence to it; so "untrue" that genetics, comparative anatomy, geographical dispersion... each area of technology which became used to examine the documents we've arrive on the right comparable TREE and, this, besides the undeniable fact that Darwin could no longer in all risk come on the factor of imagining how a number of them might function. And, yet, the thought became nevertheless scientifically valid while Darwin revealed his e book. Evolution isn't very complicated. residing beings transmit their genes by reproduction. basically survivors can reproduce and surviving relies upon on your potential to evolve on your ecosystem. all of us comprehend that there are very small mutations each and every time -- there is a few variety of genetic selection interior of each pool. some stay to tell the tale, others die. over the years, particular features, grown by small differences, provides an benefit and many the survivors are people who have been given the sting -- for this reason, the pool has a tendency in direction of a greater outfitted communities of residing beings. If circumstances exchange, so does existence, yet basically slowly. it quite is like laying the lottery, yet some have greater tickets than others. If we play in lots of circumstances adequate, maximum, if no longer all winners would be those with the main tickets. it quite is mathematically demonstrable and empirically coherent... what do you want greater desirable than that? you do no longer even want fossils to coach it. in simple terms residing creatures are adequate.
2016-10-16 08:03:59 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Check out Kent Hovland. He's a creation scientist and his fact are so sound that evolutionists quit debating him because he makes them look like the fools that they are!
His website is www.drdino.com
2006-10-23 14:32:58 · answer #6 · answered by couragetostand 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
MOnkeys are funny... so it's hard for me to choose.
2006-10-23 14:15:59 · answer #7 · answered by Starlight 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋